.png)
Realism is one of the dominant schools of thought in international relations theory. It takes a state-centric approach to international relations that primarily focuses on the interactions that take place between great powers. Thinkers of this school of thought, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, identify military power as the focal point of these interactions, believing this “hard” form of power to be the means and end of international politics. The concept of anarchy is also crucial to understanding a realist’s explanation of the international system and most notably, why conflict occurs. International anarchy in this instance proposes that the global system lacks a sovereign or supreme authority and therefore is dominated by the self-interested actions of states. Kenneth Waltz is widely regarded as a founder of neorealism, a branch of realism that focuses on the structure of the world system as the root cause of war, which is the focus of his third image of analysis - anarchy - outlined in his book “Man, the State, and War” in 1959. Whilst he states that this level of analysis is the most significant, his first two images - human nature and the state - also provide insight into important causes of conflict.
Waltz’s three ‘images of analysis’ identify the three root causes of war. The first is the role of individuals, which reflects the realist image of human nature whereby humans have a universal and natural desire to achieve domination through violence. Secondly, Waltz points to the notion that some states are more prone to conflict than others by way of their respective regime type. Democracies are typically seen as more peaceful when conducting relations due to the internal restraints of domestic institutions and electoral popularity that characterise them. Dictatorships or fascist regimes, on the other hand, have more violent tendencies within their national culture, or more importantly, their internal organisation where power is highly concentrated in the hands of one body. From a Marxist perspective, capitalist states are more prone to conflict due to the inherent competition caused by economic activity. However, the reason for conflict that came to hold greater significance than any other factor for Waltz, who was a “structural realist”, is the system itself and its anarchic ways, as the state-centric structure means that there are no checks, balances or legal restrictions to limit the actions of a state in their pursuit of power. In other words, there is no ‘global policeman’. Consequently, realists support the idea that states must self-preserve in a self-help system where law and trust in the form of functioning treaties and agreements are largely absent. Further to this, under anarchy, a security dilemma often emerges because when states build up their military capacity, other states who believe this to be a threat also add to their arsenal. A dilemma is apparent as both states still feel insecure despite having larger militaries. Additionally, this often leads to a varying distribution of power across the international system where there can be unipolarity of one leading hegemon, a bipolarity between two powers, or a multipolarity.
This leads us to the question – how does a realist envisage a road to peace? This has also been answered by Waltz, who argued in favour of the recurring pattern of a balance of power which is viewed as a natural, as opposed to imposed, equilibrium. This takes into account the overwhelming survival instinct of states which causes them to ‘bandwagon’ together to balance their own power with that of larger states. This is defined as an external method of balancing. Conversely, internal balancing can be equally effective as states build up their military within to balance the power of larger states. In each version of the balancing of power, the threat of war with a state that possesses an equal amount of military capacity most commonly acts as a deterrent. Where this fails, states form a coalition when in conflict with one antagonistic state as seen in the Napoleonic wars. However, this must not be mistaken for trust but rather a necessary balancing of power to alleviate the insecurity imposed by the security dilemma, and these alliances are not fixed. Instead, alliances are fluid mechanisms which shift in the face of an unchanging system of anarchy. It is worth noting, however, that some realists - including Robert Gilpin - support the hegemonic stability theory, which states that the most stable structure of power is one where one state is the single dominant world power.
留言