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.

How globalisation has affected organised crime

 

Globalization has been recognized as a powerful force that has led to the integration of cultures, ideas, and products at an international level. It has been able to make sure that it takes advantage of the current communication and transport infrastructure to enhance the manner through which individuals across the world interact. The result has been that there has developed a level of interdependence at an international level that has never been seen before in history. It has further promoted the enhancement of global poverty alongside prosperity, which has become a paradox because while some individuals have reaped great benefits from globalization, others have ended up becoming its biggest victims. One of the most unfortunate developments in the contemporary world as a result of globalization has been the advancement of OCS at an international level. These organizations have been able to take advantage of the lack of strong international governance to make sure that they are able to get involved in various criminal activities at an international level and at great profits. Furthermore, their activities have taken advantage of the spread of global poverty as a means of bringing about the expansion of their influence on a global scale. The lack of official information concerning the influence of OCS at an international level has made it virtually impossible for governments to fight them effectively. Globalization has become one of the most significant contributors to OCS attaining an international level and this has led them to expand their activities to a transnational level.

The inequality that has been brought about by globalization cannot be underestimated because it has affected individuals across the world, especially in developing countries. It has led individuals affected by poverty to become involved in illegal businesses in order to survive (Enamorado, López-Calva, Rodríguez-Castelán, & Winkler, 2016). Among these businesses are those that are associated with OCS which facilitates the development of a situation where they are able to make ends meet. Some of the OCS are responsible for human trafficking and these have sought to take advantage of those individuals affected by poverty so that they have ended up in a situation where they are forced to give up large sums of money in order to be smuggled into the countries that they desire. The trafficking syndicates do not usually keep their promises to the people that they smuggle because in some cases, they gain considerable power over them. Instead of setting them free once they arrive at their destination, it is common for OCS to take advantage of these individuals in such a way that they not only end up providing free labor for many years, but they are also deprived of their rights and at times even sold into prostitution (Shelley, 2011). The failure of the international system to make sure that there is the advancement of the rights of individuals has made it possible for OCS to take advantage of the vulnerability of the poor, and paint glorious pictures of quick wealth in developed countries, which makes these individuals become victims. Among the people who have become the most victimized are those coming from Latin America with their final destination being the United States. Another group of individuals that are often victimized are often those from the war zones of the Middle East, who seek to reach Western Europe in order to improve their economic situations. Under these circumstances, OCS have attained a level of prominence in the human trafficking business that it has become essential for international organizations and institutions to address these issues urgently.

Drug dealing at an international level has also become a lucrative business for OCS because of globalization. This is because globalization and the development of a shared culture has ushered in an age where there is greater demand for drugs such as cocaine and heroin in the market (Bagley, 2004). The OCS have taken advantage of this situation to ensure that they undertake to supply these drugs to the global market. The lack of any significant intergovernmental cooperation when it comes to the war on drugs has made it virtually impossible for governments to curb the growing power of OCS. Instead, the latter have been able to spread their influence into those countries in the world where they were previously not present. Furthermore, they make use of the globalized communication infrastructure to not only organize their operations, but also make use of the transport infrastructure to distribute the drugs (Bagley, 2012). The result has been that OCS have been able to attain a hold over their desired markets and these has led to a considerable increase in their influence on a global scale. The proceeds from the trade in drugs are at times used in investments into legitimate businesses, which often act as fronts for money laundering.

The trade in counterfeit goods has also become a lucrative one for OCS because they are able to make use of the same channels as legitimate ones in order to put their goods into the market. There has been the expansion of these criminal activities to such an extent that it has become common for OCS to distribute counterfeit goods, especially in developing countries. The relative success of these organizations has come about because of the considerable lack of effective regulations when it comes to the implementation of international laws (Hennigs et al., 2015). Furthermore, the failure of effective intergovernmental cooperation has made it possible for OCS to improve their reach into markets that have traditionally been dominated by legitimate businesses. OCS have become involved in the trafficking of firearms, rare artifacts, among others through taking advantage of the forces of globalization that make it possible for legitimate businesses to thrive. The failure by regulatory authorities has made sure that OCS are able to thrive in a globalized environment in such a way that they have attained competence when it comes to overcoming those authorities that regulate the movement between national borders. Globalization has essentially made it possible for OCS to thrive alongside legitimate business, and this can be considered one of the most significant failures of this aspect of the contemporary world.

The deregulation of global trade has made it possible for OCS to thrive because there is little regulation over the movement of goods and services. Most national governments, because of the reduction of regulation at an international level, have found it quite difficult to contain OCS and these have taken advantage of this situation to make sure that they are able to achieve their criminal objectives. The lack of regulation has made it possible for OCS that are involved in the trafficking business to expand their influence to such an extent that they have been able to gain a grip over a considerable chunk of the global illegal trade (Andreas, 2011). These organizations have also taken advantage of the deregulated financial system to not only move funds, but also to launder their proceedings from illegal businesses. The deregulated financial system as well as global trade has made it more convenient for OCS to make sure that they are not only able to undertake their activities unchecked, but also to bring about a situation where they are able to participate in transactions that, while illegitimate, cannot be controlled by national governments. Through these transactions, these entities have been able to rake in massive profits while at the same time avoiding the scrutiny of global organizations, which are responsible for a diversity of regulations.

The advancements that have been made in the technological field have greatly enhanced the ability of OCS to function at an international level. This is because the technology is made use of for planning of their operations so that it becomes possible for them to not only bring about the achievement of their goals, but also the spread of their influence across the world (Pinotti, 2015). The use of these technologies make it possible for OCS to not only cultivate new markets, but also to maintain touch with the ones that they have already established because it is one of the best means through which to make sure that communications are handled in an effective but anonymous manner. The introduction of legislation with the aim of making sure that the illegal activities of OCS are curbed tend not to be effective because communication technology has become so advanced that these organizations are able to make sure that they can avoid the consequences of the laws that have been passed. Governments have come to have a hard time bringing the members of OCS to justice because the process is often one that is hindered by the international nature of their operations. Instead, these organizations have ended up in a situation where they are not hindered by most government activities against them. Instead, they are placed in a position where they can easily bend the international rules to suit their activities and this in such a way that these activities are hidden from governments and regulatory authorities at an international level.

The operations of OCS at the international level have been greatly enhanced through the increased mobility that individuals enjoy in the globalized world. It has also led to the interaction between individuals from different cultures and backgrounds, which has brought about a situation where it has become possible for OCS from different countries to coordinate their activities in such a way that they take advantage of the current globalized world (Varese, 2011). It has also ensured that there is the establishment of means through which to ensure that the cooperation between OCS makes it possible for these organizations to maintain a veneer of legality despite the fact that they are actually conducting illegal business. This level of cooperation has also led to the development of new areas within which OCS can have operations, as seen in the manner that they operate international cybercrime operations which often end up bringing them a lot of money in ransoms that are paid by individuals whose computer systems and networks are being held at ransom.

In conclusion, the international level of operations that OCS have specialized in can be considered one of the benefits that globalization has given to organized crime. This has been to such an extent that these organizations have been able to thrive in an environment that has otherwise brought with it many positive changes to society. It is expected that unless the international governance system is enhanced, OCS will continue to thrive in the globalized world.

Henry IV of England

 

Henry IV was born to John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster in 1367, a grandson of Edward III through his father, who was the latter’s fourth son. His mother was the heir to the extremely wealthy duchy of Lancaster, which included significant land holdings that made Lancaster the richest duchy in England. Thus, when Henry inherited the duchy of Lancaster, he not only became the biggest landowner in England, but also the most powerful man in the country after the king, his cousin, Richard II. Henry was an extremely charismatic leader who had a considerable following from among the populace. Furthermore, despite being a part of the French Plantagenet dynasty, he became the first English monarch since the Normal conquest to use English as his native language.[i] He also exercised a lot of influence in the country to such an extent it would play a critical role in bringing about his ascension to the throne later in life.

One of the most significant factors concerning the future Henry IV was his rebellions against Richard II, his cousin. While his father, John of Gaunt, had an extremely stable relationship with Richard II, the same cannot be said of Henry, who had a tumultuous relationship with his cousin. A consequence of this situation was Henry got involved in a rebellion against Richard II known as the Lords Appellant rebellion of 1387.[ii] While the rebellion was defeated, Henry ended up being spared execution on account of not only being a member of the royal family, but also a very close relative of the king. Instead, rather than being executed, he was raised to the duchy of Hereford. His elevation to the duchy and being spared execution seems to have pushed Henry to leave the country, leading to his exploring Europe; campaigning with the Teutonic Knights in their efforts to Christianize the Lithuanians, as well as undertaking a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.[iii] Following his return to England, he made a remark that came to be interpreted as treason and while this act was supposed to be resolved through the use of a duel of honor, Richard II, on the advice of Henry’s own father, banished Henry from England. The latter decision can be considered a part of the significant rift that existed between Henry and his father and the manner through which John of Gaunt sought to control his son’s actions. It is also likely that John sought to win the favor of Richard II so that his nephew could provide him with the support he needed to acquire the throne of Castile; which he pursued in the name of his wife, Constanza of Castile.

The problems between Richard II and Henry of Lancaster came to a head when John of Gaunt died. Following his uncle’s death, Richard II nullified the documents that automatically accorded Henry the rights to his Lancastrian inheritance; requiring that Henry request for his inheritance in person. This situation did not go down well with Henry, with the result being he approached the former archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Arundel, who had participated in the rebellion of the Lords Appellant. Arundel provided Henry with the support to invade England, timing their invasion during a time when Richard II was away in Ireland.[iv] Richard II ended up being forced to abdicate and was imprisoned, where he would die weeks later, and although the cause of death has yet to be determined, the most likely cause may have been starvation. It was following Richard II’s death that Henry’s rule began in earnest but while this may have been the case, his reign was also marked by a number of rebellions.

Rebellions against Henry IV often came about because of the common belief that Richard II was not actually dead. Therefore, the rebellions were means to ensure Richard II was placed back on the English throne. Two major rebellions of note have to be considered and these are in Wales and in Northumberland. In Wales, the uprising was led by Owain Glyndwr in 1400, who essentially sought Welsh independence through his declaration of himself as the Prince of Wales.[v] In Northumberland, the rebellion was led by the Percy family, which held the earldom of Northumberland and was tasked with the defense of the northern part of England against Scotland.[vi] While both rebellions ended up being put down by the forces loyal to Henry IV, they represented the relative instability of his reign based on his more distant claim to the throne as well as the manner through which he had taken it from his predecessor.[vii] It may also have been an indication of the considerable support that Richard II continued to have despite the fact of his death; which many of his supporters did not believe had happened.

The later life of Henry IV is one that saw the king essentially withdraw from public life. This came about because of a disfiguring disease that made him become a recluse. A result of this situation was his son, Henry, Prince of Wales, was given control of the government, which he ran alongside a council.[viii] The king was wary of his son, who he believed was too eager for the throne, but while this may be the case, the Prince of Wales effectively took power from his father during the latter’s lifetime. The debilitating disease, as well as the skin disease that he suffered from, ensured that his reign would come to a discomfiting end since despite having seizing the throne from his cousin; he was unable to enjoy his gains. Not only was he forced to withdraw from the public and become a recluse, he ended up bowing to the inevitable when he was forced to surrender his power to his son, who would eventually ascend the throne as Henry V following his death in 1413.

In conclusion, Henry IV displayed considerable ambition, which was reflected through his behavior towards his cousin, Richard II. While he was able to achieve his goal of gaining the throne, his rule was a period of turmoil in England because rather than promoting stability, it would eventually plant the seeds of the civil war that would come to be known as the War of the Roses. The latter war not only split the Plantagenet family, but it would also lead to its doom because the family would be supplanted by the Tudors. Therefore, while Henry IV’s reign may have begun with promise, it created the conditions that would make the country extremely unstable due to the rival claims to the throne by the different branches of the Plantagenet dynasty.

---

[i] Isabelle Janvrin and Catherine Rawlinson, The French in London: From William the Conqueror to Charles De Gaulle (Bitter Lemon Press, 2016), 16.

[ii] Bryan Bevan, Henry Iv (Springer, 1994), 6.

[iii] Chris Given-Wilson, Henry Iv (Yale University Press, 2016), 66.

[iv] Bevan, 51.

[v] Anthony Goodman, "Owain Glyn Dwr before 1400," Welsh History Review= Cylchgrawn Hanes Cymru 5 (1970): 67.

[vi] JMW Bean, "Henry Iv and the Percies," History 44, no. 152 (1959): 212.

[vii] Peter McNiven, "Legitimacy and Consent: Henry Iv and the Lancastrian Title, 1399-1406," Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982): 470.

[viii] "The Problem of Henry Iv's Health, 1405-1413," The English Historical Review 100, no. 397 (1985): 747-48.