This Week We Were Focused On Mainstream Theories Of Reality ✓ Solved

This Week Were Focused On The Mainstream Ir Theories Of Realism Libe

This week we're focused on the mainstream IR theories of Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. Do Realism please After you read this week's assigned texts, please pick one theory and complete the steps below: Define the theory in your own words- what are the main ideas? What are the strong points of theory? What are the weak points? In other words, what events can the theory explain, and what can it not explain? Use this theory (and the others if applicable) to explain a current event in international relations. What are the weak points of your chosen theory and why? Be sure to define your terms and to support your answer with references to the course materials ( and the videos) and/or the lesson for this week.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction to Realism in International Relations

Realism is a prominent theory in international relations that emphasizes the competitive and conflictual nature of the international system. It posits that states are the primary actors operating in an anarchic environment where no central authority exists to enforce rules or ensure security. The main ideas of realism revolve around the notions of power, national interest, and the survival of the state as the paramount goal. Realists believe that states must prioritize their security needs, often through military capability and strategic alliances, to maintain their sovereignty amidst ongoing global competition.

Core Principles and Main Ideas of Realism

The core principles of realism include the belief that international politics is characterized by a struggle for power among self-interested states. Classic realism, rooted in the writings of Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hans Morgenthau, emphasizes the centrality of national interest and the quest for power as the driving forces behind state behavior. These theorists argue that the international system is anarchic—that is, there is no overarching authority—and that this condition fosters conflict and competition. Consequently, states adopt a pragmatic approach, focusing on the accumulation of military strength and strategic dominance to safeguard their national interests.

Strengths of Realism

One of the main strengths of realism lies in its explanatory power concerning state behavior during conflicts and power struggles. For instance, realism effectively explains the arms race during the Cold War, where superpowers prioritized military buildup to deter adversaries. Its focus on power politics helps interpret why states sometimes engage in aggressive foreign policies or form strategic alliances. Moreover, realism provides pragmatic insights into the importance of national sovereignty and security in shaping foreign policy decisions.

Weak Points of Realism

Despite its explanatory successes, realism faces criticism for its limitations in accounting for cooperation, international institutions, and the role of non-state actors. It tends to overlook the importance of international law, economic interdependence, and normative considerations that can promote peace and stability. For example, realism struggles to explain the formation and effectiveness of international organizations like the United Nations in resolving conflicts peacefully. Additionally, it often underestimates the influence of domestic politics, identity, and ideology on a state's foreign policy.

Applying Realism to a Current Event: The Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict exemplifies realist principles, particularly the pursuit of power and security. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent military actions demonstrate the desire to expand influence and ensure strategic security along its borders. Russia perceives NATO expansion and Ukraine's increasing alignment with Western institutions as threats to its sovereignty, prompting it to assert military power. From a realist perspective, this conflict reflects the anarchic international system motivating states to prioritize security and power, often through coercive means.

Weak Points of Realism in Explaining the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

While realism accounts for the power dynamics involved, it offers limited insight into the complex cultural, historical, and ideological factors underpinning the conflict. It tends to reduce international conflicts solely to security and power considerations, neglecting the importance of national identity, historical grievances, and domestic political influences. Moreover, realism does not fully explain efforts by international actors and institutions aiming to mediate or resolve the conflict peacefully, such as sanctions and diplomatic negotiations. These aspects highlight the theory's weaknesses in addressing the multifaceted nature of contemporary conflicts.

Conclusion

In summary, realism provides a valuable framework for understanding state behavior in an anarchic international system driven by power and security concerns. Its strengths lie in explaining conflict, competition, and strategic alliances. However, it falls short in accounting for cooperation, international norms, and internal political factors, which are also vital in explaining complex international events such as the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Recognizing these limitations is crucial for developing a comprehensive understanding of international relations.

References

• Morgenthau, Hans J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Waltz, Kenneth. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Longman.
• Mearsheimer, John. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Rosecrance, Richard. (2006). The Rise of Modern Internationalism: American Foreign Relations Since 1914. Yale University Press.
• Linklater, Andrew. (2016). Critical Theory and International Relations. Routledge.
• Baylis, John, Smith, Patricia, & Owens, Patricia (Eds.). (2017). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford University Press.
• Keohane, Robert O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
• Hurrell, Andrew. (2007). “On Global Order,” International Relations, 21(2), pp. 223–242.
• Lake, David. (2011). “Two Cheers for Power Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, 17(3), pp. 433–454.
• Jentleson, Bruce W. (2014). American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century. W.W. Norton & Company.