Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
There are competing general theoretical perspectives in the scope of discussing international law. One of the popular theories is called realism, or political realism which represents a view of international politics that emphasizes general international policy’s competitiveness and conflict. It is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which tends to emphasize cooperation. From a realists’ point of view, the main actions performed in the international arena are executed to ensure the countries’ security, pursue national interests and fight for power. The ideas of realism have long been the object of close attention and active discussion by scholars of international relations. The philosophy of political realism has a long history dating back to the ancient Greek era. Modern realists consider the ancient Greek historian Thucydides as the founder of political realism, who emphasized conflict situations’ immediate causes (Ruggie, 1995). Despite describing the countries’ relationships’ many vital ideas, the realism theory’s critique of international law has various weaknesses, the major of which is identifying anarchy as the primary principle of international law.
Central Principles of Political Realism
Before discussing the major weakness of political realism in relation to international law, the ideology of this theory should be addressed. The main participants in international relations are sovereign states holding the power. At the same time, countries are considered as rationally acting subjects, representing a local union of citizens and adhering to the only official international course. Politics is treated as a function of ethics, meaning that the state is prioritized over morality. Political realism does not address the inconsistency of such a position with universal moral ideals. International stability and world order are preserved or violated only through the efforts of the most significant and potent participants in international relations.
Another characteristic of this theory is establishing the anarchic character of international relations. National interests are the main category of the idea of political realism and, at the same time, the main motive of the state’s foreign policy. Within the scope of international law, each of the countries acts based on the homeland interests, which primarily include security. No supreme power in international relations would have a monopoly on legitimate violence. International politics is conflictual and potentially confrontational in its essence (Ruggie, 1995). Any state operating in an anarchist environment based on its interests inevitably faces the problem of conflicting interests. Realists recognize that conflicts are not the only type of international interaction but note the subordinate role of cooperation with regard to conflicts. However, the theory considers cooperation as forced, which develops in the shadow of war. In other words, the so military-political collaboration is its predominant variant which every country strives to.
The realism in relation to international law treats the military-political alliances concluded by states for joint defense. The peace between states is ideal because it is temporary due to the redistribution of power between the participants in international relations. The anarchic nature of international relations suggests that they are full of dangers and threats for all states. That is the reason why the primary goal of the state in international relations is to ensure security. In conditions of information uncertainty about the plans and capabilities of other subjects of international relations, the state seeks to increase its military-political capabilities indefinitely. Its security is growing, while the safety of other subjects is decreasing due to increased pressure. Thus, international relations are built as a zero-sum game, in which one side’s gain means a proportional loss for the other.
Weaknesses of Political Realism in Relation to the International Law
The critique of political realism in relation to international law focuses on highlighting the inconsistencies with the theory and the lack of structurally defined concepts. One of the central claims is that realism is based on the principle of understanding international relations as a natural state of power confrontation for the possession of power. As a result, this theory reduces the complexity of international relations by focusing primarily on interstate inquiries. The second problem is related to the idea that domestic and foreign policies are unrelated. In other words, the reciprocal impact of these two political activities’ directions is unaddressed.
The theory states that countries are interchangeable mechanical bodies with the same response to external influences. From the realism perspective, the only significant difference, which is substantial internationally, is the aspect of power. The third weakness which can be highlighted within the scope of political realism is that this theory absolutizes the role of force and underestimates the importance of other factors, such as spiritual values and socio-cultural ties. It can also be emphasized that the lack of comprehensive addressing of all mentioned factors makes the theory less reliable. Scholars usually highlight the fourth problem of the lack of theoretical and scientific development of the state’s concept of force and power (Grieco, 1988). Although it is addressed often in the scope of the theory, mentioned concepts are not clearly defined.
The Weakest Point of Realism
The last weakness of the theory which should be emphasized is the highlight of the anarchy of international relations. Realists consider the absence of government, anarchy in the literal sense of the word, to be the primary determinant of the outcome of international politics. From this perspective, the absence of a unified rule-making and law-enforcement body means that the international arena is essentially a flawed system. Each state is responsible for its survival and is free to determine its interests and seek power (Grieco, 1988). Thus, anarchy leads to a situation in which power plays a dominant role in shaping interstate relations. According to the theory, independent cities survive only by force without any general authority enduring order. Because realists conceive of the world of states as anarchic, they accordingly see safety as the main issue. To achieve security, states try to increase their power and strive for a balance of power to deter potential aggressors. This concept can be considered the weakest point of the whole theory because it prevents the inclusion of such criteria as cultural, social influence, and ethical values.
Conclusion
Therefore, the realism critique of international law has many potential weaknesses. Focusing on anarchy as the moving power of only global change, the theory misinterprets many aspects of the cooperating, missing the cultural and ethical perspectives. The structural anarchy of the international system is believed to consist of the external coercion and restrictions that affect the state. However, international relationships, especially in modern conditions, require a more adaptive and inclusive theoretical approach. Such an interpretation of power and cross-countries communication can lead to the denial of progress within the scope of international relationships.
References
Grieco, J. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485-507.
Ruggie, J. (1995). The false premise of realism. International Security, 20(1), 62-70.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.