Rebuilding After WW2: The Theory of Realism - Essay Sample

Introduction

After the second world war, many states that had been greatly affected by the war started the process of rebuilding. The property, military power, security, economic stability and the welfare of the affected states were amongst the top priorities during this period of rebuilding. The theory of realism that greatly supports state sovereignty came into action during the post-world war two era.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The international theory of realism emphasizes on state sovereignty, state interests and power of their military personnel in International global politics. In the space of international politics, the theory of realism is also known as political realism. The realist theory believes that the ultimate powers fall on states who are therefore responsible for their wellbeing. Matters of national interests like security, power struggles, food security, economic development, social development, and environmental conservation are true responsibilities of the states, who pursue interests that are beneficial to them. However, realists are always in doubt of the ethical considerations of international politics in other countries. In as much as realists are from the school of thought that national politics is the topmost dimension of power, sovereignty and law, they believe that international politics is compromised by great injustice, and is depicted by the probability of potential rivalry between states (Galston, 385-411).

In essence, not all realists conform to the international theory of realism. The forefathers of classical realism like Reinhold Niebuhr argue that the birth of international politics is a result of human behavior (Kirshner,53-75). Classical realism acknowledges the existence of ethical judgments in International politics and neither does it deny the possibility of moral perceptions in international law. Classical realism further argues that a state has no moral authority to justify its actions neither does it glorify rivalry in international politics. Classical theorists believed that supreme power belongs to a people whose action is dependent on wisdom. Wisdom provides a greater responsibility to pick the best possible political action taking into consideration the overall effects.

Neorealism, however, disagrees greatly with realists and classical realists. Neorealism believes that in world politics, the distinguishing factor is power. In international relations, whoever pursues greater authority in terms of technology, military might, political might, and great economic developments hold the greatest power. The pursuit of these determinants of power in international politics is critical because, with this, the possibility of War is very likely at any given time.

How is realism different from the theories of liberalism, constructivism, and Marxism?

Unlike the theory of realism that supports total sovereignty of a state, the international theory of liberalism is a philosophy which supports equality. Liberalists argue that any country should be governed based on civil, human, economic and social rights instead of complete anarchy. On the other hand, constructivism differs greatly from realism because it suggests that human beings obtain knowledge from their vast experiences and understanding of different aspects of their lives (Rawls, 515-572). This knowledge generated is further used to develop theories that guide movements spread all over the world. In addition, Marxism argues that economic, social and political change is driven by the different structured social classes which are determined by the amount of wealth a social class possesses. Marxism suggests that capitalism by the higher social class determines the direction of any given state greatly.

What are some of the criticisms of realism? How do other theories criticize realism? Are these criticisms valid or not? Are the claims of realism supported or undermined by the record of important events in the history of international politics? (give examples)

Any theory is set to face criticism from various spheres, and the theory of realism is no different. One of the criticisms of realism is that citizens of a given state give up some of their rights to socially support the well being of a country for it to survive in international politics. This criticism is greatly supported by the theory of liberalism that states otherwise that human and civil rights should be used to govern the country for equality purposes. This criticism is very valid therefore because of them as the citizens may be made to believe that it is a harsh world, they should never give up the one thing that protects them from abuse by their state, which is their human rights.

Another critic is that the theory of realism supports the use of trickery and ill will in politics to control its populations. This criticism is greatly supported by the theory of constructivism which supports that humans should make decisions based on their experiences that they have had. The critic is therefore very valid because malice can be used by leaders to control perceptions and outcomes of predetermined situations as long as it will be seen as putting the interests of a state first as supported by the realist's theory.

The claims of realism are greatly supported by events in the history of international politics. One major event was the 9/11 bombing in the United States that saw the deaths of many American citizens and destruction of property. The president, George W. Bush responded quickly to the bombers by directly bombing their base. This act greatly supports realism because, at that time, America had great military strength which is utilized to help protect its borders in times of a great security threat. In another setting, America would have proceeded the diplomatic way to hold international relations to solve disputes, but they chose to go the realist's way.

Does any other theory explain the world better than realism? Why or why not?

Considerably, there is no other theory that explains the world better today than the theory or realism. This is so because according to Samuelson (736-739), any state in the world has its interests and security matters to consider when dealing in international world politics. The ability of any state to respond to crisis and defend its borders, protect its people from harm without much interference from the international relations committees is the ultimate power. In the world today, different states are working towards being self-sufficient and survive in international politics full of other states competing for the same stature. The president of America is seeking to make America Great Again, meaning he is looking to empower his country with policies that put the self-interest of their country first, protect it borders with matters security and survive. However, there's much more competition coming from the East like Russia and China that are seeking to obtain Sovereignty and self-power in international world politics.

Conclusion

In conclusion, international relations and diplomacy sometimes do not work. External countries might move into a sovereign country to help diffuse the situations, but in reality, they continue to worsen the situation. This may lead to wider destruction of properties, declining economies, collateral death and affect the general welfare of people in a state. Therefore, a state should be allowed sovereignty, enough power of their own to handle their countries issues without much interference from the international relations who act as world watchers. However, international relations should not be completely abolished because a sovereign country might decide to seek conditional help from other organizations from time to time. Hence, the theory of realism helps to put at bay the slow advancements of neo-colonialism of many different nations.

Works Cited

Galston, William A. "Realism in political theory." European journal of political theory 9.4 (2010): 385-411.

Kirshner, Jonathan. "The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China." European Journal of International Relations 18.1 (2012): 53-75.

Rawls, John. "Kantian constructivism in moral theory." The journal of philosophy 77.9 (1980): 515-572.

Samuelson, Paul A. "Theory and realism: a reply." The American Economic Review 54.5 (1964): 736-739.