Realism (international relations)

Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince (1532) was a major stimulus to realist thinking.

Realism, in international relations theory, is a theoretical framework that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation.[1][2]

Realism involves the strategic use of military force and alliances to boost global influence while maintaining a balance of power. War is seen as inevitably inherent in the anarchic conditions of world politics. Realism also emphasizes the complex dynamics of the security dilemma, where actions taken for security reasons can unintentionally lead to tensions between states.[1]

Unlike idealism or liberalism, realism underscores the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics. In contrast to liberalism, which champions cooperation, realism asserts that the dynamics of the international arena revolve around states actively advancing national interests and prioritizing security. While idealism leans towards cooperation and ethical considerations, realism argues that states operate in a realm devoid of inherent justice, where ethical norms may not apply.[1]

Early popular proponents of realism included Thucydides (5th century BCE), Machiavelli (16th century), Hobbes (17th century), and Rousseau (18th century).[3] Carl von Clausewitz (early 19th century), another contributor to the realist school of thought, viewed war as an act of statecraft and gave strong emphasis on hard power. Clausewitz felt that armed conflict was inherently one-sided, where typically only one victor can emerge between two parties, with no peace.[4]

Realism became popular again in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. At that time, it polemicized with the progressive, reformist optimism associated with liberal internationalists like U.S. President Woodrow Wilson.[1] The 20th century brand of classical realism, exemplified by theorists such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau, has evolved into neorealism—a more scientifically oriented approach to the study of international relations developed during the latter half of the Cold War.[1] In the 21st century, realism has experienced a resurgence, fueled by escalating tensions among world powers. Some of the most influential proponents of political realism today are John Mearsheimer[5] and Stephen Walt.[6]

Realists fall into three classes based on their view of the essential causes of conflict between states:

• Classical realists believe that conflict follows from human nature.
• Neorealists attribute conflict to the dynamics of the anarchic state-system.
• Neoclassical realists believe that conflict results from both, in combination with domestic politics. Neoclassical realists are also divided between defensive and offensive realism.[7]

Realism entails a spectrum of ideas,[8][9][10][11] which tend to revolve around several central propositions, such as:

1. State-centrism: states are the central actors in international politics,[12]: 209  rather than leaders or international organizations;
2. Anarchy: the international political system is anarchic, as there is no supranational authority to enforce rules;
3. Rationality and/or egoism: states act in their rational self-interest within the international system; and
4. Power: states desire power to ensure self-preservation.[8][13][9]

Political scientists sometimes associate realism with Realpolitik,[14] as both deal with the pursuit, possession, and application of power. Realpolitik, however, is an older prescriptive guideline limited to policy-making, while realism is a wider theoretical and methodological paradigm which aims to describe, explain, and predict events in international relations. As an academic pursuit, realism is not necessarily tied to ideology; it does not favor any particular moral philosophy, nor does it consider ideology to be a major factor in the behavior of nations.

However, realists are generally critical of liberal foreign policy.[15] Garrett Ward Sheldon has characterised the priorities of realists as Machiavellian and seen them as prioritising the seeking of power,[16] although realists have also advocated the idea that powerful states concede spheres of influence to other powerful states.[17][18]