'Man is by nature a political animal'. For every realist, Aristotle could be a respectable ancestry more than Machiavelli, who was closer to the classical realist theory. The Realist family is not the oldest, but maybe the simplest one, and the first one to formulate a real answer, and a powerful explanation about international relations. The state of war dominates the international system, even if it is possible to create common institutions. The aim of international relations theories is to understand why the state of war endures. For that, Realists drew upon many different theories to build their own. For instance, 'The Origin of Species' written by Darwin in 1859 underlines the 'struggle for existence', which is one of the key realist concepts . The oldest analysis about war was conducted by Thucydides about the Peloponnesian war (431–404 BC). This writer is often regarded as the founding father of international relations. His writing gives the key point of realist perspective 'The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must'. Though a realist perspective had already existed for a long time, the real story of Realism begins after the First World War. The Realist theory was a reaction against the Idealism of the inter-war period. Idealist thinkers, often called 'utopians', believed that states share common interests, and that it could be possible to stop the scourge of war thanks to humankind. The atrocity of WW I made research about peace necessary. The first modern thinkers in International relations were idealists. They came from England and wanted to understand why this war had happened, and how peace could be built by the power of law. The Second World War confirmed the inadequacies of the idealists' point of view, and created a debate between Realism and Idealism (often called the first debate). Realism believes in 'objective factors' , i.e. the world exists without human interpretations, and, consequently, its aim is to explain the world of international politics as it is.
[...] To conclude, after evaluating the different levels of analysis used by Classical and Neo-realism, it is possible to assert that there is no one level of analysis that is superior to the other . All levels are useful and contribute to the enrichment of theories in international relations. Bibliography * Wight Martin, 'International theory: the three traditions', Leicester University Press for the Royal Instituteof International Affairs * J. David Singer, 'The level of analysis problem in International Relations', World politics: Vol.14,No The International system: Theoretical essays. [...]
[...] His project was to enhance the realistic paradigm, and to give a new breadth to the most powerful paradigm in the study of world politics. Thomas Kuhn's theory helped Waltz to realize this aim. Kuhn argues that a paradigm is immeasurable. Every scientific model is characterized by its immeasurable notion. It means that the paradigm creates its own problems, its own data, and its own language. It generates its own experiences, its own assumptions etc. It is completely autonomous[9]. Waltz wants to use this notion to enhance the realistic paradigm. [...]
[...] The work of Nicollo Machiavelli, a theorist of politics and war during the 16 century, is also used by Realism to explain the crucial issue of level of analysis. His famous work 'The Prince' focuses on the way international politics should be run. Because of an anarchic system, states need to follow a policy guided by 'la raison d'état'. This policy allows states to do what they want in order to ensure their survival. This means that states create international relations. [...]
[...] Classical and Neo-Realism argue that force and balance of power remain two important tools to understand international relations, but the fundamental difference between them is the level of analysis they focus on. In order to interpret an event such as the Kosovo war, it is necessary to choose a level of analysis. Karen Ruth Adams, a neo- realist, tries to explain Yugoslavia's disintegration and NATO's intervention in Kosovo with a systemic-level approach. She focuses on international anarchy, polarity and the security dilemma, in order to analyze their effects on Yugoslavia's government. [...]
[...] He states that: States are the main actors, their basic goals are survival, security and independence; the world is plagued by security and prisoner's dilemmas and the only solution to avoid war in a multi-polar world is to create a balance of power. This system of a hegemonic actor demands stability between states. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and the Treaty of Vienna (815) created such a system. In conclusion, Realism does not care about the whole. Thanks to its behaviouralist methodology, it tries to explain political outcomes. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
