• Submitted By: sganny1
  • Date Submitted: 01/20/2009 4:21 PM
  • Category: Business
  • Words: 1782
  • Page: 8
  • Views: 713


• ANSWER PG 3 – 5

Question: Seen over a long term, realism is the dominant theoretical tradition in international relations.Why? What is the emancipatory critique of realism? Does it make sense?

Realism, also known as political realism in international relations, has been one of the dominant forces guiding the international theory. It consists of a variety of approaches and theories which all share a common belief amongst themselves. Realists share a common bond by a few assumptions which they believe are the tenets of realism. Realists perceive the states as the main principal actors and the international system as anarchical. There is no authority or power above these states to question their decisions and actions. All decisions are therefore made by the decision maker of the state or in other words the state leader.
Therefore, other international organizations and non-governmental organizations have little independent influence on the decisions made. They are primarily there to help in fulfilling the interests of the states.
Power in realism is given a great deal of importance. It would be logically correct to say that “power is almost like the currency of international politics” (Lecture 3: Structural Realism Slide Three) in Realism. States therefore act in accordance to these points and their every aim is to maximize power. Realists believe that by increasing power a state can insure the safety of its inhabitants and have the ability to control not only their actions but also of those less powerful to them. It creates a certain threat against possible enemies. A well known classical realist Hans Morgenthau once said that, “States are self-interested, power-seeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival.”(Realism and International Relations/Donnelly, Jack 2000...

Similar Essays