Classical Realism and Neo-realism on War

 Realism is a school of thought in politics and international relations that focuses on the realistic approach to matters concerning states and their relationships with one another. This approach is one that seeks to promote the idea that security and national interests are more important concerns over those involving morality, ideology, and social reconstructions. It focuses more on power politics, and this is in such a way that advances the need to make sure that there is a study of the relationship between states based on their ability to enforce their own interests. This school of thought is one that seeks to show that all political actions are aimed at the attainment of power both at the domestic and international levels. Therefore, the major aim of politicians and states, according to this approach, is the pursuit of power and this ensures that there is the promotion of the idea that when it comes to international relations, power is the only thing that matters. In this paper, there will be a discussion of two approaches of the realist school of thought to war; classical liberalism and neo-realism. The major aim is to determine which approach best describes war and its use in international relations.

Classical realism states that the international system tends to be in a constant state of war and this creates a situation where there is the promotion of the individual interests of states. Despite the presence of some common principles with neo-realism, classical realism is closer to the ideas that were promoted by the Italian philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli. The latter made popular the idea that individuals tend to have a drive to not only obtain power, but also have the will to dominated, which is an essential aspect of human nature (Brown, 2009). A consequence of this situation is that there is a constant form of conflict between states as each seeks to make sure that it achieves an advantage over the others. A result of this situation is that the classical realist approach is one that considers the international system as essentially being anarchical and this is to such an extent that it can be considered an extension of human nature. Conflict between states is unavoidable, especially in situations where states share common interests yet only one of them can be able to pursue these interests effectively. Under such circumstances, a conflict will inevitably arise between these two states until such a time as one of them is able to achieve its dominance over the other. There is a constant drive aimed at promoting the continued seeking of power by states and this is to such an extent that there is neither kindness nor benevolence in the relationship between states because in the end, they are all in competition with one another, and this can result in war at any time in a bid by one or another to secure its interests and dominance within the international system.

The classical realist approach is one that suggests that states are self-centered and competitive, and this is represented in their approach to international relations. Under such circumstances, war takes place because despite the domestic political system being stable, the international one does not have a hierarchy, meaning that there is not higher authority that can prevent the constant turmoil that is constantly present (Kirchner, 2012). Instead, there is the promotion of a situation where each state seeks to make sure that it protects its own sovereignty at all costs. The classical realist approach, which focuses more on great power politics, shows that great powers seek to bring about the establishment of their dominance over the international system at the expense of others at the same level. This situation creates an environment where there is the constant promotion of war, or the threat of war, as a means of securing themselves. Great powers can undertake to speed up their acquisition of weapons for war in a bid to ensure that they have an edge over their rivals in the international system. However, this process makes their rivals wary, encouraging them to also stockpile weapons because of the mutual suspicion that exists between these powers (Pashakhanlou, 2017). A consequence is that there is an arms race which, if not stopped, can end up erupting into war between powers because they have geared themselves towards an inevitable conflict. States, as equal actors in the international stage, where they exercise their influence based on their capabilities, end up being the major determinants of when conflict is going to take place (Porter, 2016). They go to war because there is not direct arbiter to conflict since non-governmental organizations, according to the classical realist view, do not play a huge role on the international relations stage.

One of the most significant arguments made in support of classical realism is that war is an inevitable aspect of states, and that conflicts take place because states seek to expand their power and influence. This is furthered by Thucydides, who, in his analysis of the Peloponnesian War promoted the idea that states often seek to bring about their survival meaning that conflict between them is inevitable (Brown, 2009). The war that took place between Athens and Sparta during the Peloponnesian War was one that sought to establish the dominant power in Greece. It was aimed at making sure that only one power in the whole of Greece was able to exercise its influence effectively. Neither Athens nor Sparta would have been comfortable with the other exercising power and influence over the whole of Greece because it would have hindered their very survival. Therefore, it was inevitable that these two cities ended up fighting one another for many years because it was a means through which to ensure their undisputed mastery. Because these states had the power to conduct war, they did so against one another because it is in the nature of states to promote their own interests first over others. They displayed the opportunistic aspects of human beings that promoted the selfish idea that their interests came first. From the classical realist perspective, war is inevitable and it comes about because of aggressiveness and opportunism that is displayed by states on the international stage. Those that have the power to conduct war do so and those that do not have the same power have to submit to those that do or else face destruction.

Classical realism promotes the idea that the national interest has to be put at the foremost of international policy. Under such circumstances, states can decide to renounce their obligations and treaties if the latter do not pursue their interests. The ability of the state to pursue its interests, even when it comes to going to war, has to be put at the forefront of policy, because it enables the state to adapt to the ever changing international system (Deudney & Ikenberry, 2017). Furthermore, war is necessary when the state is under threat or when expansion is necessary to ensure that there is the achievement of more security. Wars are undertaken as a means of promoting the interests of the state in such a way that it is made more secure. The continuously changing realities in international politics means that there are instances where war is necessary, meaning that there is need to leaders to have the ability to not only influence state policy, but also make use of the power of the state to enforce its will over those states that have lesser power. It also becomes necessary to keep adapting to the change that inevitably takes place in the international system because it helps in the promotion of a situation where the state is able to gain an advantage over others because of the highly competitive and anarchical nature of international relations (Ferguson, 2015). Through this approach, it is possible to see the way that classical realism promotes the understanding of war as being an extension of the nature of man, which is governed by competition and fear.

When it comes to the definition of war, classical realism best describes it and it does so more efficiently than neo-realism. This is because while neo-realists agree with classical realists that all states are sovereign and that they exist within an anarchic international system, they promote the idea that it is essential for an international structure to be set up to ensure that there is the advancement of effective relationships between states (Bell, 2017). Neo-realism is also similar to classical realism because it considers the international system as being anarchical in such a way that there is a constant potential for conflict between the various states within it. Because states often seek to protect their self-interests, it becomes impossible for them to sacrifice their own needs in favor of others, and instead, these entities end up getting into conflict with one another. This interpretation of the international system by neo-realists essentially agrees with that of classical realists, because it shows that the international system is one where there is need to ensure that the security of the state is protected at all times because to do otherwise could become a threat to survival. War is therefore a pertinent means of promoting a situation where there is the advancement of initiatives aimed at making sure that the security of the state is ensured against encroachment by rival states that seek to expand their own power. A result is that the competition between states in the international system leads to a disparity in power that encourages even more conflict to take place within it; hence a constant state of anarchy.

Some of the most prominent neorealist thinkers, such as Kenneth Waltz, tend to veer away from classical realism and instead promote the idea of a structured international system. This idea is based on the belief that there is a need to ensure that there is the incorporation of the evaluation of anarchy in a structured manner, because states are only as sovereign as within the limits of what they are capable of (Waltz, 2000). There is a constant security dilemma among states in the international system which comes about because of the uncertainty in relationships between states and this increases the distrust between them that increases the chances of going to war. A consequence of such a situation is that there is need to ensure that there is the establishment of structures aimed at the reduction of instances of conflict. However, to attain this objective requires that there is the establishment of cooperation between states but this is difficult within such an anarchical international system (Walt, 2018). This approach differs considerably from that of classical realism because it fails to consider that it depends solely on the ability of the Great Powers, which have the capability of exerting their influence across the international system, to come to a compromise in order for conflicts to be reduced.

The concept of war is an integral aspect of classical realism because it essentially derives from the anarchical nature of the international system. This is especially the case where states seek to advance their own interests at the expense of others (Buzan, 1996). This approach best describes wars because it allows for the assessment of the manner through which states end up getting involved in conflict in the first place. The ability of a state to conduct war against another is dependent on its domestic situation; especially a desire to make sure that there is the preservation of its security and way of life at the international stage. Under such circumstances, it depends wholly on the status that a state enjoys internationally because it is more common for the more powerful states to conduct war rather than the weaker ones. As seen in the example of the Peloponnesian War discussed above, the strongest powers within the system will seek to expand their influence over all others not only to serve their interests, but also to promote their own security. Athens and Sparta went to war because they were the most powerful of the Greek states, which meant that they sought to promote a situation where they would be able to make use of their power to achieve complete dominance over all others. Therefore, classical realism, which focuses mainly on the great powers, is a more efficient approach when it comes to the explanation of war because it is these powers which are most likely to undertake war than others, which do not often have the same military capabilities.

In conclusion, classical realism explains war as a result of the anarchical nature of the international order. Because of this circumstance, there is often a high possibility of conflict between states since all of them tend to seek to gain the most advantage for themselves at the expense of their counterparts. Furthermore, war can be considered to be a means through which the political objectives of states at the international level can be obtained. Under such circumstances, it is the anarchy within the international system that creates an environment where war is possible. Without such anarchy, war would not take place as frequently because the states within it would seek to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of others so that there could be the promotion of a situation where there is the advancement of peace. However, the selfish nature of states, which is a manifestation of that of human beings, means that conflicts is inevitable within the international system. The characteristics of these states ensure that there is the creation of an incentive for greater use of force in order to enhance their own interests, hence war.

 

References

Bell, D. (2017). Political realism and international relations. Philosophy Compass, 12(2).

Brown, C. (2009). Structural realism, classical realism and human nature. International Relations, 23(2), 257-270.

Buzan, B. (1996). The timeless wisdom of realism. International theory: positivism and beyond, 47-65.

Deudney, D., & Ikenberry, G. J. (2017). Realism, Liberalism and the Iraq War. Survival, 59(4), 7-26.

Ferguson, Y. H. (2015). Diversity in IR theory: Pluralism as an opportunity for understanding global politics. International Studies Perspectives, 16(1), 3-12.

Kirshner, J. (2012). The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 53-75.

Pashakhanlou, A. H. (2017). Fear in Realism and Beyond. In Realism and Fear in International Relations (pp. 117-141). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Porter, P. (2016). Taking uncertainty seriously: Classical realism and national security. European Journal of International Security, 1(2), 239-260.

Walt, S. M. (2018). US grand strategy after the Cold War: Can realism explain it? Should realism guide it?. International Relations, 0047117817753272.

Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International security, 25(1), 5-41.