Kamis, 05 Agustus 2010

Posted by Unknown On 8/05/2010 06:54:00 PM
Realism, also known as political realism (see also Realpolitik), is a school of international relations that prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions. This term is often synonymous with power politics.
Realist theories share the following key assumptions:
  • The international system is in a constant state of anarchy. There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
  • In pursuit of national security, states strive to attain as many resources as possible.
  • States are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
  • The overriding 'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival.
  • Relations between states are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities.
  • The interjection of morality and values into international relations causes reckless commitments, diplomatic rigidity, and the escalation of conflict.
  • Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system and special attention is afforded to large powers as they have the most influence on the international stage. International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence.
In summary, realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless given the right conditions under which they can coexist, contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations. Further, they believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism); and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's security can bring along even greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms in response. Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made. There are no universal principles which all states can use to guide their actions. Instead, a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve the problems that arise.

Historic antecedents

While Realism as a formal discipline in international relations did not arrive until World War II, its primary assumptions have been expressed in earlier writings[1][2]:

Thucydides author of The Peloponnesian War is considered one of the earliest "realist" thinkers.[7]

Classical realism

Classical realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of man that pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places interests over ideologies. Classical realism is defined as the “drive for power and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental aspects of human nature” [3]
Modern realism began as a serious field of research in the United States during and after World War II. This evolution was partly fueled by European war migrants like Hans Morgenthau.
Modern realist statesmen
The ideas behind George F. Kennan's work as a diplomat and diplomatic historian remains relevant to the debate over American foreign policy, which since the 19th century has been characterized by a shift from the Founding Fathers' realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations. In the realist tradition, security is based on the principle of a balance of power and the reliance on morality as the sole determining factor in statecraft is considered impractical. According to the Wilsonian approach, on the other hand, the spread of democracy abroad as a foreign policy is key and morals are universally valid. During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, American diplomacy reflected the Wilsonian school to such a degree that those in favor of the realist approach likened Clinton's policies to social work. According to Kennan, whose concept of American diplomacy was based on the realist approach, such moralism without regard to the realities of power and the national interest is self-defeating and will lead to the erosion of power, to America's detriment.[7]

Criticisms

Democratic peace

Democratic peace theory advocates also that Realism is not applicable to democratic states' relations with each another, as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one another. However, Realists and proponents of other schools have critiqued both this claim and the studies which appear to support it, claiming that its definitions of 'war' and 'democracy' must be tweaked in order to achieve the desired result. This is along with Archaic rule of law.

Federalism

The term refers to the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a centre. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and centre may vary. Typically the centre has powers regarding defence and foreign policy, but sub-units may also have international roles. The sub-units may also participate in central decision-making bodies.
The basic idea behind federalism is that a unifying relationship between states should be established under a common system of law. Conflict and disagreement should be resolved through peaceful means rather than through coercion or war. Its most important aspect is in recognizing that different types of institutions are needed to deal with different types of political issues.

Post-realism

Post-realism suggests that Realism is a form of social scientific and political rhetoric. It opens rather than closes a debate about what is real and what is realistic in international relations

References

  1. ^ Political Realism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  2. ^ see also Doyle, Michael. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (Paperback). 1997. London: W. W. Norton & Company, esp. pp. 41-204
  3. ^ Baylis, J & Smith, S & Ownes, P, The globalization of world politics, Oxford university press, USA, pg. 95
  4. ^ a b Gideon Rose, "Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy", World Politics, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 144-172
  5. ^ Randall L. Schweller, "The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism", pp. 311-347 in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman eds., Progress in International Relations Theory, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003)
  6. ^ But see Kahler, Miles. Rationality in International Relations International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, International Organization at Fifty: Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (Autumn, 1998), pp. 919-941 © 1998 MIT Press.
  7. ^ Richard Russell, "American Diplomatic Realism: A Tradition Practised and Preached by George F. Kennan," Diplomacy and Statecraft, Nov 2000, Vol. 11 Issue 3, pp 159-83

0 komentar:

Posting Komentar