Realism

Question: Realism, as a theory of I.R, stresses that the international system is “anarchic”.What is

 the meaning and the implications of this? Is it a correct characterization – discuss with reference to

 contemporary examples? Does Realism's notion of anarchy imply that diplomacy is, and should be,

 a political activity beyond morality?

                                                                     -------------

Realism, as one of the leading traditions of international theory is opposed to Idealism.

It should not be classified as a single theory with a specific set of assumptions and

implications. As Gilpin claimed, it is a “philosophical disposition” (304) rather than a distinct

and continuous theory.

Nonetheless, some basic presuppositions are shared between Realist theoreticians. The

first is that in the International system, states are the most important actors. International

organizations, economic enterprises and interest groups all operate through the state

(Brown 29).

The second assumption is that all states are unitary rational actors and the third that they

all seek survival.

Finally, the fourth assumption stresses that the international system is anarchic.

What does this term signify? How does anarchy affect interstate relations?

This paper will attempt to define anarchy and its implications on diplomacy according to

the main realist theoreticians.

In the context of International Relations, the term anarchy must not be confused with

chaos - instead, it refers to the absence of a higher global authority that is able of handling

relations and preventing aggression.

As Realists presuppose that states are the key actors in the global sphere, this implies that

nations are able to attack one another without fear of punishment by a supranational

authority as long as they believe it to be in their best interest. This results in fear, insecurity

and potentially war.

For this reason, while national politics can successfully aim for authority and Law,

International Politics are characterized by active or possible conflict among the states that

it comprises.

The reasons and implications of such a system have been discoursed by the ancient

Greek historian Thucydides (460-411 BCE). In History of the Peloponnesian war he gives

an account of the war fought between Sparta and Athens through a series of debates

between antagonists about several political issues. As one of the earliest works of History,

Thucydides’ report of the Peloponnesian war showcases the first Realist vs. Idealist

altercation known to us so far.

In the Melian Dialogue (vol 5. 84-116) , the Athenians argue that morality has “never

turned people aside from the opportunities of aggrandizement offered by superior

strength” (vol 1. 76).

Their state-centric approach emphasizes human nature’s inclination towards power in

spite of morality.

This egoistic, self-interested perspective of human nature is perhaps most commonly

associated with Hobbes (1588-1683). According to him, each individual “struggles for

power in a war of all against all” (409).

Due to the scarcity of goods, individuals are obliged to compete with each other to ensure

their own survival and safety. In such circumstances, war is inevitable. The international