The study of International Relations (IR) has evolved significantly over time, shaped by the emergence of various theoretical approaches aimed at understanding the complexities of global politics. Among these, the traditional approach and the behavioral approach represent two distinct paradigms that have influenced the study of IR. These approaches differ in their focus, methodologies, and underlying assumptions about human behavior, state actions, and international interactions.

Historical Context and Emergence

The traditional approach to IR emerged in the early 20th century and dominated the field until the mid-20th century. Rooted in historical, philosophical, and legal analyses, it sought to understand international relations through normative and descriptive lenses. Thinkers such as E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Raymond Aron contributed significantly to this perspective, emphasizing the role of power, morality, and diplomacy in shaping global politics. Traditionalists viewed international relations as a practical discipline, aimed at guiding policymakers and diplomats in managing conflicts and maintaining order.

The behavioral approach, on the other hand, gained prominence in the post-World War II era, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s. This paradigm emerged as part of a broader shift in the social sciences toward more scientific and empirical methods, influenced by developments in fields such as psychology, sociology, and economics. Behavioralists, including scholars like David Easton and Karl Deutsch, sought to establish IR as a rigorous, objective discipline by employing quantitative methods and focusing on observable patterns of behavior. This approach was a reaction to the perceived subjectivity and lack of scientific rigor in the traditional paradigm.

Core Principles and Assumptions

The traditional approach is primarily normative and philosophical, focusing on the why of international relations rather than the how. Traditionalists emphasize the importance of history, ethics, and human nature in understanding the behavior of states and international actors. They believe that the study of IR is inherently subjective and value-laden, as it involves interpreting complex political and moral dilemmas. For example, Hans Morgenthau’s Realist theory posits that human nature is inherently power-seeking, which shapes the anarchic and conflict-prone nature of international politics. Traditionalists often rely on qualitative analysis to provide in-depth insights into specific historical events, diplomatic practices, and legal frameworks.

In contrast, the behavioral approach is scientific and empirical, focusing on the how of international relations. Behavioralists emphasize the importance of observable behavior, data collection, and statistical analysis in identifying patterns and trends in global politics. They reject the idea that IR is primarily normative, arguing instead that it should aim to produce objective, generalizable theories about international behavior. Behavioralists view states and other actors as rational entities, whose actions can be explained and predicted through models and hypotheses. For instance, game theory and systems analysis, widely used by behavioralists, seek to understand decision-making processes in contexts such as arms races, trade negotiations, and alliances.

Methodological Differences

The methodological divide between the two approaches is perhaps their most striking difference. Traditionalists rely on qualitative methods, including historical case studies, textual analysis, and interpretive approaches. They prioritize depth over breadth, seeking to understand the unique contexts and nuances of specific international events. For example, traditional scholars might analyze the causes and consequences of World War I by examining diplomatic correspondence, treaties, and the role of key leaders.

Behavioralists, on the other hand, adopt quantitative methods and a systematic approach to data analysis. They utilize tools such as surveys, experiments, and statistical models to test hypotheses and identify recurring patterns. For instance, the Correlates of War project, initiated by behavioralists, collects extensive data on conflicts to analyze the conditions under which wars occur. This project reflects the behavioralist emphasis on empirical evidence and theory-building based on measurable phenomena.

Contributions to International Relations

Both approaches have made significant contributions to the field of IR, albeit in different ways. The traditional approach has enriched the discipline by providing profound insights into the philosophical and ethical dimensions of international politics. It has emphasized the importance of norms, values, and diplomacy in maintaining global order. For example, the traditional emphasis on the balance of power and the role of international law has shaped key aspects of international institutions such as the United Nations.

The behavioral approach, meanwhile, has advanced the discipline by introducing scientific rigor and enhancing its predictive capabilities. By focusing on measurable variables and patterns, behavioralists have contributed to the development of theories such as neo-realism, liberal institutionalism, and constructivism. Their work has also influenced policy-making by providing policymakers with tools to model and anticipate the consequences of various actions. Behavioralists have, for example, contributed to the study of arms control through quantitative analyses of arms races and disarmament treaties.

Criticisms and Limitations

Both approaches have faced criticism for their respective limitations. The traditional approach is often criticized for being subjective and unscientific, as it relies heavily on interpretation and lacks generalizability. Critics argue that its focus on history and philosophy makes it ill-suited to address the complexities of modern global politics, such as economic globalization, technological advancements, and non-state actors.

The behavioral approach, on the other hand, has been criticized for being overly reductionist and quantitative, potentially neglecting the rich, qualitative aspects of human and state behavior. Critics argue that the reliance on data and models can oversimplify complex political realities, leading to theories that lack relevance in real-world scenarios. Moreover, behavioralists’ emphasis on positivism and objectivity has been questioned, as social and political phenomena are inherently influenced by subjective factors such as culture and identity.

Conclusion

The traditional and behavioral approaches in International Relations represent two fundamentally different paradigms, each with its strengths and weaknesses. The traditional approach provides a deep, normative understanding of the ethical and historical dimensions of global politics, while the behavioral approach offers scientific rigor and empirical insights into observable patterns. Together, they have enriched the study of IR, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities of international relations. While the debate between these approaches continues, many contemporary scholars advocate for a synthesis of the two paradigms, combining the depth of traditional analysis with the precision of behavioral methods to address the multifaceted challenges of the modern world.

At the International scene, there are many players engaged in what is regarded as the game of international Politics. One of the oldest and universally acknowledged actors on the modern world stage is the state. A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government. A Political community is referred to as a government responsible for the citizens under the government. It has been earlier assumed that international relations are made up of the relations between states. International relations can be likened to a series of actions that promote interactions between states. Actors are entities that participate in or promote international relations. The two types of actors involved in international relations include State and non-state actors. State actors represent a government while non-state actors do not. However, they have impact on the state actors.

A definition of world politics involving only states as the actors has been challenged since the late 1960s and the early 1970s, since many other actors have become way more involved in the process of international political. Due to this, international relations promotes International pluralism fostering national interactions. The forces of globalization and liberalization in the last three decades of the twentieth century have resulted in a transformation in the world economic structure, thereby undermining the ability of states to govern in full capacity. These great global transformations have had a major influence and have modified the traditional paradigm and theories of international relations, most especially the school of thought of realism due to its basic proposition that actors represent the states, and the states operate a system of anarchy. The realist school of thought has however been criticized for its focus on the state view of international relations and its shallow focus on the problems of war and peace.

Role of Transnational Organisation

Transnational relations are usually defined as regular cross-border interactions in which non-state actors play a significant role. This opens a wide research area in the context of globalisation where a great variety of actors participate in growing global exchanges. Of particular importance for international relations are transnational actors that wield considerable influence on politics across borders, such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations (MNCs), religious actors, terrorism rebels, criminal actors, and diasporas and ethnic actors. Transnational organizations have existed before in history. Armies and navies, churches and joint stock companies, as well as other types of organizations have been involved in transnational operations in the past. During the twentyfive years after World War II, however, transnational organizations: (a) proliferated in number far beyond anything remotely existing in the past; (b) individually grew in size far beyond anything existing in the past; (c) performed functions which they never performed in the past; and (d) operated on a truly global scale such as was never possible in the past. The increase in the number, size, scope, and variety of transnational organizations after World War II makes it possible, useful, and sensible to speak of a transnational organizational revolution in world politics.

Transnational organizations are designed to facilitate the pursuit of a single interest within many national units. The transnational organization requires access to nations. The restraints on a transnational organization are largely external, stemming from its need to gain operating authority in different sovereign states. In this sense the emergence of transnational organizations on the world scene involves a pattern of cross-cutting cleavages and associations over- laying those associated with the nation-state.

A distinctive characteristic of the transnational organization is its broader-than-national perspective with respect to the pursuit of highly specialized objectives through a central optimizing strategy across national boundaries.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs)

The most prominent contemporary NGOs are multinational corporations (MNCs) They are huge firms that own and control plants and offices in at least more than one country and sell their goods and services around the world. They are large corporations having branches and subsidiaries operating on a worldwide basis in many countries simultaneously. MNCs are “major driver of global economic integration” and “establish unprecedented linkages among economies worldwide”. MNCs can be classified according to the kinds of business activities they pursue such as extractive resources, agriculture, industrial products, transportation, banking, and tourism. The most notable MNCs are industrial and financial corporations (the most important being banks). Naturally the primary objective of MNCs is profit maximisation. They are very effective in directing foreign policy of states, including that of the most powerful ones, and they set agenda for international politics. They have become a major factor in national economic decision making process. 

MNCs may be considered as instruments of economic development for less developed countries. However, when we look at the functions they perform in host countries, we see that they have a very strong bond with the home government which becomes a source of concern for host countries. MNCs challenge the state sovereignty of host countries. Host countries may lose control over their economies. They create political and social division and prevent the development of domestic industries in host countries. They may produce specialized products of which the buyer is usually the parent company. They may manipulate prices of imports and exports in host countries. However, there are many conflicts between MNCs and their home countries over taxation, trade policies, and economic sanctions. MNCs may not want to follow national policies pursued by their home governments. That is, trade (MNCs) may not always follow ‘flag’ (state policies).

In order to minimise the negative impact of MNCs, we witness government interventions through nationalisation, government participation and government initiation of joint development projects. Furthermore, governments have to maintain control over tax revenues, inflation rate, credit policies, trade balances, balance of payments, trade restrictions, monetary values, employment, and economic planning to decrease their dependence on MNCs. Host countries may place restrictions on the ownership and behaviour of subsidiaries and on the freedom of businesses. Because only by controlling these fields a host country may have an upper hand vis-a-vis MNCs.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in advanced industrial countries with a free enterprise system have been operating on the basis of mutual infiltration or interpenetration . “In the case of underdeveloped countries, there is widespread apprehension about the dangerous implications of the amalgam of the power economics of the multinational corporations and power politics . The long term primary interest is nothing but the maximization of profits for “home” through the subsidiaries, whose innovations are also used not for the host countries, but ‘home’. The movement for international regulation of MNCs arose from the inability of individual countries, particularly the developing ones, to control the activities of the corporations within their territories.

The globalization process has led to a configuration of the ways in which MNCs pursue their resource seeking, market seeking and efficiency seeking objectives. Globalization polices of firm require following complex integration strategies under which firm split up the production process into various specific activities or segments of these activities with each of them carried out by subsidiaries in locations best suited to the particular activity. This process creates an international intra-form division of labour and a growing integration of international production networks. But on the whole MNCs are phenomenon of the twenty century and to a large extent latter of the second half of the twentieth century.

After the Second World War, the International System came to be a totally different system from the classical (19th century) international system. The classical international system was Euro-centric and it worked on the principles of balance of power, war as a means, secret diplomacy as an instrument, and narrow nationalism as its objective.

Under the impact of the two world wars, particularly as a result of the Second World War, the nature of international system underwent a big change. Under the impact of the changes that it produced in the international power structure as well as due to the emergence of several new factors, the nature and content of post-war international relations registered an almost total and revolutionary change. It became a new international system and replaced the classical international system.

Changes in Post War International Relations

End of the Traditional Euro-Centric International Power Structure

The two wars, particularly the Second World War destroyed the old international power structure and gave rise to a new structure. Before the war, only European nations, particularly Britain, France, Germany and Italy, were the major actors in world politics. The USA used to follow isolationism and the USSR, after 1917, had remained fully occupied with the process of internal consolidation of the socialist system.

After the war:

• Germany and Italy became very weak as a result of their defeats in war;
• Britain and France also became weak due to the heavy war losses suffered by them;
• The war destroyed the balance of power system in Europe;
• There appeared a power vacuum in Europe;
• Europe lost its position as the epicenter of international politics;
• A weak Europe set the stage for the liberation of Asian and African countries from the clutches of imperialism and colonialism;
• The power vacuum in Europe impelled the USA to abandon isolationism and to increase its influence in Europe.
• It compelled the USSR to adopt a similar exercise for increasing its influence in international relations.

These post war changed produced a big change in the international system.

Emergence of Cold War

In the Post-war period, the USA decided to use its superior economic and military position for filling the power vacuum in Europe and for this end decided to win over the democratic European nations through its Marshall Plan. It also adopted the policy of fighting the spread of communism. ‘Containment of Communism’ became the primary aim of US Foreign Policy.

Such an American attempt was thoroughly opposed by the USSR and it also decided to extend its influence in Europe. The success that it achieved in exporting communism to most of the East European countries emboldened it. The emergence of China as a communist power in 1949 gave further strength to Soviet-led communist movement. The USSR adopted the policy of challenging the US policies. In the process, there developed a cold-war—a war of nerves full of tensions and strains in world politics, which made international peace a risky and unstable peace.

Emergence of Bipolarity—Bipolar Power Structure

The emergence of cold war led to the organisation of two competing and rival camps by both the USA and the USSR. The USA floated a large number of bilateral and multilateral alliances like NATO, SEATO, ANZUS and several others for consolidating the democratic anti-communist countries under its own leadership.

The USSR countered the move by organizing the communist countries into the Warsaw Pact. These developments led to the emergence of two rival camps—the US Bloc and the Soviet Bloc, This situation came to be characterised as bipolarity in world politics and it divided the world into two competing and even hostile blocs.

Rise of Several New Sovereign States

After the World War II, the weakened position of the European imperial powers and the strengthened spirit of national self- determination and liberation among the colonies became instrumental in initiating a process of end of colonialism and imperialism in the World. The anti-imperial & anti-colonial movement began registering a stupendous success.

Several nations of the world, particularly Asian and African nations, were successful in overthrowing the yoke of colonialism and imperialism and in securing their independences. There came to be a big increase in the number of sovereign states in the world. Rise of new sovereign states in Asia, and Africa and a resurgent Latin America began giving a completely new look to the world map and international relations.

Birth of Non-alignment

In the era of cold war and alliance politics, some states, particularly some new states, decided to remain away from cold war and the super power alliances. States like India, Yugoslavia, Egypt, and Sri Lanka. Burma (Now Myanmar) and some others decided to follow such a policy. This come to be known as the policy of Non-alignment.

In 1960 the countries following non-alignment in international relations launched the movement of the Non- aligned (NAM) for collectively withstanding the pressures of the era of cold war by taking mutually accepted decisions and policies. The main aim of Non-alignment and NAM was both to keep away from cold war and its alliances as well as to promote mutual understanding and cooperation among the non-aligned states.

Democratization of Foreign Policy and Changes in Diplomacy

The end of the Second World War rejected the thesis of authoritarianism in favour of democracy and under its influence the formulation and implementation of foreign policy became democratic in nature and style. In the 19th century, the foreign policy of a nation was formulated by a class of professional experts—the diplomat and statesman.

It used to be a close preserve of the Foreign Office and Diplomacy. The democratization of politics however made foreign policy an object of discussion and subjected it to the influence of the common man. National public opinion, press and world public opinion came to be important factors of foreign policy.

The changes in the nature, content and working of foreign policies of various nations resulted in a big change in the nature of post- war international relations. Diplomacy also came out of its old style and colour and it now came to be a new and open diplomacy.

Loss of Relevance of Balance of Power

Between 1815-1914, Balance of Power acted as a regulator of International relations. It suffered a big blow in the First World War. It was revived in 1919, with a new mechanism like the League of Nations, but it again flopped in 1939 when the Second World War broke out.

After the end of the Second World War several big structural changes in the International system as well in the Balance of Power system reduced the operation ability of this device. This rise of two super powers, transformation of war into a total war, the emergence of nuclear weapons, the establishment of the United Nations, the emergence of the process of decline of imperialism- colonialism and several other such factors made Balance of Power system almost obsolete.

The Birth of Nuclear Age

The final end of the Second World War came with the use of atomic weapons by the USA against Japan. It symbolized the beginning of nuclear age in International Politics. For the first time some countries came to acquire means capable of destroying the entire world. The nuclear factor divided the nations into nuclear nations and non-nuclear nations, the former enjoying superiority in power relations over the latter.

The two super powers came to enjoy, as Max Lerner observed, the capacity of “over kill”. Both, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. could destroy the entire world but no other nation individually or collectively could destroy or defeat the super powers. War became a total war and the world found itself dependent on the policies and activities of the two super powers.

Transformation of War into Total War

Nuclear weapons changed the nature of war from a Simple war to total war. These made the war totally destructive. No nation whether nuclear or non- nuclear, could hope to survive a future war since it was bound to be a thermo-nuclear war.

Balance of Terror in place of Balance of Power

The traditional concept of balance of power became obsolete in the face of the fact that it became impossible to create a preponderance of power against any aggressor backed by a nuclear power. The Balance of Power got replaced by a Balance of Terror which made the international system very dangerous and risky. The fear of mutually assured total destruction (MAD) through accidental war began haunting the policy-makers of all the nations.

A New Desire for Peace

The two World Wars within a short span and the possibility of a much more destructive, rather totally destructive, Third World War made humankind highly conscious of the need for preserving and strengthening international peace and security. The urge for securing peace became stronger than ever before.

Increasing Interdependence among Nations

After the end of the Second World War, International relations began developing a truly global character in which each nation began finding its national interests inseparably bound up with the interests of other nations as well as with international interests of peace, security and development. This realization and the growing interdependence of the world became instrumental in giving a vital and welcome strength to the cause of peaceful and cooperative international relations.

Birth of the UNO

The failure of the League of Nations to maintain peace after the First World War was mostly due to the shortcomings of the Covenant of the League as well as because of the not fully representative character of the League. Consequently, after the Second World War, the statesmen felt no hesitation in agreement to establish a new international organisation—the United Nations Organisation which came into existence on 24 October, 1945.

The UNO was designed to act as an effective platform for international diplomacy designed to secure international peace and security, and development through collective efforts of all the nations. The UN assumed the responsibility to maintain international peace and security by promoting friendly cooperation among the member states. Along with it, the UN Charter laid down a collective security system as the new device of power management in international relations.

Recognition of the Role of Power in International Relations

In the post-war period the factor of power came to be accepted as an incontrovertible fact of international relations. It was realized that each nation is always prepared to use its national power to secure the goals of her national interest. It was further realized that the role of power in international relations was direct and the nature of interactions among nations reflected a continuous struggle for power. To analyze international politics as a struggle for power or as a set of interactions involving power, came to be a very popular approach in International Politics.

Emergence of the Age of Technology

In the post-1945 years, man’s ability to use the knowledge of scientific inventions for the welfare of humankind got greatly enhanced. It was because of this fact that 20th century came to be known as the age of technology. Science and Technology began playing a big role in changing the environment of international relations.

As a result of technological revolution, there began appearing a revolutionary development in spheres of industry, transport, communications, agriculture and military. The resultant economic growth became instrumental in producing big changes in the nature of international relations.

The change in the concept of war from a simple war to a total war gave a new dimension to international relations. The revolutionary developments in the fields of transport and communication increased the scope and frequency of relations among nations. The rapid technological development in the developed countries made them economically and militarily stronger enough to maintain a neo-colonial control over the newly emerged developing countries.

Their monopoly over advanced technology and the disinclination to share its benefits with all other nations produced a sharp division nations—the developed and the under-developed or developing nations. The relations between the developed and under-developed later on became a focal issue of post-1945 international relations.

Emergence of a Peace Movement

The two World Wars within a short duration and the possibility of a much more destructive, rather totally destructive Third World War made humankind highly conscious of the need for preserving and strengthening international peace and security. The urge for securing peace became stronger than ever before. There appeared a welcome peace movement in international relations. This encouraged nations to work for mutual welfare and development. They became highly conscious of the need for development through mutual cooperation and goodwill.

Rapidly Increasing Interdependence among Nations

After the end of the Second World War, international relations began developing a truly global character in which each nation began finding its national interests inseparably bound up with the interests of all other nations as well as with international interests of peace, security and development.

This realization and the interdependent nature of international community became instrumental in giving a vital and welcome strength to the cause of peaceful and orderly international relations. Peace became a cherished value and it gave a purpose to international relations i.e. to find ways and means for securing and strengthening stable and durable peace in the world. These gave an encouraging and welcome direction to post-war international relations.

End of the Traditional International System

The international system of post-war period became totally different from the classical international system in several ways:

1. Power scarcity that characterised the classical international system got replaced by power surplus (Nuclear weapons, overkill capacity and two super powers) in the new system.
2. The Balance of power got replaced by a Balance of Terror.
3. The formulation and implementation of foreign policy became a more complicated and democratic exercise.
4. A big change in world political relations took place as a result of the rise of new states, and the liquidation of imperialism and colonialism.
5. Peace, security, development and prosperity for all the nations got recognized as a value in international relations.
6. There developed an arms race between the two super powers and the exercise became more dangerous because of the birth of nuclear arms race.
7. Because of increase in the number of states, there came to be developed several new problems and international relations became highly complex.
8. The presence of the United Nations gave a new look to the post-war international system.
9. New and Open Diplomacy came to replace the old and secret diplomacy.
10. The presence of two competing, in fact rival super powers set the stage for the emergence of cold war and bi-polarity in international relations.
11. The transformation of war into a total war made it much more dreaded and the nations became more and more interested in preserving international peace and security.
12. All the nations became conscious of the need for preserving peace through a better and effective device of power management i.e. collective security.

Thus the Second World War had a big impact on the nature of international relations. Post-War International system came to be a system totally different from the pre-war international system.

After the Second World War, the International System came to be a totally different system from the classical (19th century) international system. The classical international system was Euro-centric and it worked on the principles of balance of power, war as a means, secret diplomacy as an instrument, and narrow nationalism as its objective.

It came to be replaced by a new international system which was characterised by two super powers, cold war, bipolarity, non-alignment, anti-imperialism, the UNO, the presence of several new sovereign states in the world, N-weapons and the threat of Total War. This new international system continued to work, almost unchanged, till the last decade of the 20th century when it came to be a Post-Cold War, Unipolar International System experiencing a new liberalisation and globalisation.

INTRODUCTION

Realism, a school of thought in international relations theory, is a theoretical framework that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation.

Realism involves the strategic use of military force and alliances to boost global influence while maintaining a balance of power. War is seen as an inevitability inherent in the anarchic conditions of world politics. Realism also emphasizes the complex dynamics of the security dilemma, where actions taken for security reasons can unintentionally lead to tensions between states.

Unlike idealism or liberalism, realism underscores the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics. In contrast to liberalism, which champions cooperation, realism asserts that the dynamics of the international arena revolve around states actively advancing national interests and prioritizing security. While idealism leans towards cooperation and ethical considerations, realism argues that states operate in a realm devoid of inherent justice, where ethical norms may not apply.

Early popular proponents of realism included Thucydides (5th century BCE), Machiavelli (16th century), Hobbes (17th century), and Rousseau (18th century). Carl von Clausewitz (early 19th century), another contributor to the realist school of thought, viewed war as an act of statecraft and gave strong emphasis on hard power. Clausewitz felt that armed conflict was inherently one-sided, where typically only one victor can emerge between two parties, with no peace.

Realism became popular again in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. At that time, it polemicized with the progressive, reformist optimism associated with liberal internationalists like U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. The 20th century brand of classical realism, exemplified by theorists such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau, has evolved into neorealism—a more scientifically oriented approach to the study of international relations developed during the latter half of the Cold War. In the 21st century, realism has experienced a resurgence, fueled by escalating tensions among world powers. Some of the most influential proponents of political realism today are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

REALISM: MAIN ASSUMPTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

Assumptions are logical beliefs and are very important as these are building blocks of a theoretical approach. For example, you assume that man is selfish by nature; or that he is a social animal who loves to cooperate and live peacefully with other human beings. These assumptions together help explain a problem and provide coherence to a perspective or approach to IR. For these reasons, it is important to know the core assumptions of Realism that it uses as its basic tools to make sense of the InternationalRelations (Legro and Moravcsik, 1999).

States are the Primary Actors in the International System

This assumption of Realism has three expressed meanings:

• International politics is a domain of conflict between and among sovereign states. Conflictual interaction among these sovereign states is the core of international politics.
• States in international politics are sovereign, unitary and rational actors. At least at conceptual level, sovereign states are supremely powerful, unified with fixed political goals and they do costbenefit analyses.
• In its interaction with other states, each state seeks to promote and guarantee its own ‘interest’. The foremost interest of each state is its own security and expansion of its power.
• In order to ensure its own security, each state seeks to secure and accumulate power. Power alone deters others from attacking it. In other words, every state is out to enhance and expand its capability at the cost of other states.

IR is Anarchic in Character

In Realism, ‘anarchy’ defines International Relations. Anarchy means that there is no “central authority” or “world government” to manage or put in order the international relations among sovereign states which are distrustful of each other and which, out of a sense of insecurity, accumulate more and more power so as to become ‘secure’. ‘Anarchy’ is an assumed political condition in which there is no world authority to enforce order. This assumed condition “frees” the state to undertake cost-benefit calculations and act towards its self-interest or “national interest” by depending solely on its own capability. Capability – military, technological, economic, and political – must continue to expand and become formidable; otherwise the state may risk its life and protection.

Control over Material Resources is Fundamental to World Politics

In order to enhance its capability, every state is constantly striving to gain maximum control over the material resources and this tendency to control is fundamental to the world politics. Realism tries to justify this assumption by linking it with other assumptions that the approach fosters. States are motivated to have control over material resources because i) there is no central authority to reasonably distribute the resources among its constituent units; ii) the material resources are not in abundance; and iii) the material resources add to the coercive capacity of a state against its counterparts which is critical in an anarchic political set up. These reasons motivate a state to acquire more and more capability. Besides E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, a number of other scholars have developed ideas and insights which constitute the core of Realist School. Of, course, there are important differences among these scholars; for instance, between Morgenthau and Waltz. Be that as it may, while certain assumptions and principles constitute the core of Realism, there are several strands or categories within Realism.

Three principal assumptions have been stated above. What are the implications of these and other assumptions? Let us have a look at the following:

• Sovereign states are the only full actors in international system. Realists draw from the ideas of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes had described man as selfish, rational and calculating. In a similar fashion, a state is selfish, rational and thinks of its interests first. It feels insecure and remains distrustful of the intentions of other states who think and behave exactly the same way. Such a state has the tendency to prepare for war and expand its power at the cost of another state, so as to guarantee its own security.
• With no supranational authority to impose order, international system, inhabited by such ratioinal, self-centred and distrustful actors, is anarchic. International system is simply a set of interacting states; each pursuing power in order to ensure its survival and further aggrandizement. In other words, anarchy in the international system produces an inherently unstable condition.
• The foremost concern of every state is its security. To ensure its survival and security, a state tends to accumulate power. As one state gathers more power, other states fear it. There is the context of power accumulation by every state and an atmosphere of mutual distrust.
• There is expediency in the behaviour of states. States may find it convenient to follow established international ‘rules’ in the short term, they do so in order to secure their long term goals viz. security and power. Realists argue that states will violate these rules as soon as they are no longer convenient to the state’s pursuit of power. After all, there is no global government to enforce international law and customs.
• According to Realism, international system is given shape and stability by the relative power of its constituent states. This means that the system’s polarity is an important Realist tool when analysing the nature of international relations on the global or regional scale. Realism’s model of the anarchic international system helps it to explain the persistence of war – defined as large-scale organised violence between two or more international actors in pursuit of political ends. Realism is a good guide in explaining the causes of war in international relations. It does so by simplifying the world– highlighting just those actors and interactions that contribute to its explanation of international conflict. Realists claim that they understand the world; that their claims are grounded in actual behaviour of the states and the ruling elites; therefore Realism is empirical and scientific.

INTRODUCTION

Like Realism, Liberalism (and its current variant neo-liberalism) is a mainstream approach to understand international politics. And, like Realism it is a name given to a family of related theories of international relations. It has a multidimensional tradition dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries. Historically, the liberal tradition emerged as a critique of feudal political rule. It also emerged as a critique of mercantilism, the dominant economic strategy of those times. Liberalism is also a rich tradition of thought concerning international relations. In this unit, we are concerned mainly with the latter dimension of liberalism.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, liberal philosophers and political thinkers debated the difficulties of establishing just, orderly and peaceful relations between peoples. A systematic account of the problems of world peace was given by Immanuel Kant in 1795. His ideas have had a profound impact on the development of liberalism in international relations. 

In the 19th century, solutions to the problem of war evaded even the most eminent of thinkers. Much of the liberal scholarship became content with diplomatic history until the outbreak of the First World War. The Great War and the destruction that it caused forced the liberal thinkers to find new means to prevent violent conflicts and create conditions in which reason and cooperation would prevail. Basing their premise on the inherent goodness of man, these liberal thinkers focused on negotiations, rule of law and establishing stable international institutions. The widespread anti-war sentiment within Europe and North America which existed in the 1920s provided the necessary support for the liberal enterprise.

However, the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of the Second World War led to the marginalisation of liberal thought that was infused with idealism. Realism came to the fore as it seemed to provide a better explanation of the power politics of the Cold War that came to dominate international relations. Nevertheless, innovations in liberal tradition continued leading to the development of a number of theories to explain the developments in international relations. Prominent among them are sociological liberalism (or transnationalism), pluralism, interdependence theory, liberal internationalism, liberal peace theory, world society and neo-liberal approaches.

In the early 1980s when conflict between major powers had receded and cooperation in pursuit of mutual interests had emerged as a prominent feature of world politics, a new paradigm or framework of analysis emerged in the liberal tradition- Neoliberal Internationalism. As this approach emerged in response to the development of neorealism, it is also called as the Neoliberal approach. This new approach infused greater scientific rigor in liberal scholarship.

In the 1990s, regional and international economic integration (globalisation) on the one hand and new issues, such as multiculturalism, democracy, environment on the other, have led liberalism to focus on international order, institutions and processes of governance, human rights, democratisation, peace and economic integration.

THE LIBERAL TRADITION: MAIN CHARACTERISTICS

Liberal theorists have strong faith in human reason. This characteristic can be traced back to the ideas of John Locke (1632-1704) who argued that reason is necessary for arriving at truth and right action. Reason is necessary for understanding and shaping nature and society. According to the liberal theorists, human beings are capable of shaping their destiny, including international relations and moulding the negative ramifications of the absence of a world government.

Secondly, liberal theorists believe in the possibility of historical progress. Human reason and processes of social learning make progress possible. In the liberal conception therefore, mankind is not doomed to live in a state of perpetual conflict, but can choose political strategies to avoid it. In other words, liberal theorists argue that it is possible and desirable to reform international relations.

Thirdly, liberal theorists focus on state-society linkages and claim the existence of a close connection between domestic institutions and politics on the one hand and the international politics on the other. Since the publication of Perpetual Peace (1795) by German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) many liberal theorists became convinced that there is a causal link between the form of domestic regime and the possibility of war. Kant had specifically claimed that ‘republican’ (that is, democratic) states are more peaceful at least vis a vis one another. The contemporary idea of theory of democratic peace can be traced to this idea of Kant.

Liberal theorists are pluralists as well. They believe that state is only one actor both in within a society and on the international stage. They challenge the realist assumption that states are the only actors in international politics. Liberals argue that there are many actors in world politics which play a vital role in influencing international outcomes. The liberal tradition highlights the importance of nonstate actors such as MNCs and NGOs.

Fifth, some liberal theorists, following David Ricardo ((1772-1823) and Richard Cobden (1804-65), champion free trade as increasing interdependence among states reduces the likelihood of war. They reject mercantilism which regarded economic growth and war as compatible goals. Liberals argue that free trade is preferable to mercantilism as trade produces wealth without war. As we shall see later, these ideas have formed the basis of an entire current of thinking: interdependence liberalism.

Liberal theorists also place great emphasis on institutions. They believe that Institutions are necessary to protect and nurture the core values like order, liberty, justice and tolerance in politics. They therefore championed the creation of the League of Nations after the World War I. They were convinced that the League as an international organisation could prevent war better than the alternatives, including the traditional balance of power politics.

Introduction

The study of relations among nations has fascinated scholars for several centuries. However, the term international was first used by Jeremy Bantham in the latter part of the eighteenth century, although its Latin equivalent intergentes was used a century earlier by Rijchare Zouche. Both of them had used this term in respect of that branch of law which was called law of nations, which later became ‘International Law’. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, international relations have grown rapidly. Today nation-states have become far too interdependent; and relations among them whether political or those related to trade and commerce, have developed into an essential area of knowledge. In this unit, we are mainly concerned with the political relations among sovereign societies called nations, or nation-states.

After the Second World War, the interdependence of sovereign States has grown immensely. Meanwhile, in the present jet age travel has become so fast that distances have been considerably reduced; and with the revolution in the field of communication, today’s satellite era has brought peoples so close to each other that international relations have assumed unprecedented importance both as a ‘condition’ and as a ‘discipline’.

Meaning of International Relations

The term International Relations (IR) may be used both for a’ condition’ and a ‘discipline’. Quincy Wright, for example, makes such a distinction. The official relations between sovereign countries are described as international relations, though according to him, “…………. the word interstate would have been more accurate because in political science the state came to be the terms applied to such societies. Viewed thus, international relations as ‘condition’ refers to the facts of international life, that is to say, the actual conduct of relations among nations through diplomacy based on foreign policy. It also includes actual areas of cooperation, conflict and war. According to Wright, IR should tell the “truth about the subject” i.e., how such relations are conducted and as a discipline IR should treat them in a systematic and scientific manner.

In other words, IR should focus on the study of all relations-political, diplomatic trade, academic among sovereign states which constitute the subject matter on international relations. The scope of IR should include study of “varied types of groups-nations, states, governments, peoples, regions, alliances, confederations, international organisations, even industrial organisations, cultural organisations, religious organisation” etc. which are involved in the conduct of these relations.

While Quincy Wright distinguished between international relations as a ‘condition’ and a ‘discipline’, there are other scholars like Palmer and Perkins who doubted its status as a discipline. They argued that History and Political Science are the disciplines from which international relations has emerged. Writing abouť 40 years ago. Palmer and Perkins had opined: “Although international relations has emerged from its earlier status as a poor relation of political science, and history, it is still far from being a well-organised discipline.”

One of the earlier scholars of international relations, Professor Alfred Zimmern had written before the Second World War that: “International Relations is clearly not a subject in the ordinary sense of the word. It does not provide a single coherent body of teaching material….. It is not a single subject but a bundle of subjects….. of law, economics, political science, geography, and so on…..” International Relations, according to Palmer and Perkins, was too subjective in character and content. In its early stages even E.H. Carr had described it as “markedly and frankly utopian.” But the failure of the League of Nations and its collective security system led Carr to remark that it had become possible to embark on serious and critical analytical thought about international problems.” This has been vigorously pursued by a number of scholars after the Second World War. Today, it will not be proper to describe International Relations as ‘Utopian or deny’ it the status of an independent subject of study. National interest is an important concern of every state. Planners and makers of foreign policy cannot ignore correct perception of their country’s national interests which must be protected at all costs. Hartman defines International Relations as a field of study which focuses upon the “processes by which states adjust their national interest to those of other states.” Since national interests of different states are often in conflict, Morgenthau concludes that international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Therefore, power is the means through which nations promote their national interest.

International Relations and International Politics

The first Chair in International Relations was established at the university of Wales (U.K) in 1919. The first two occupants of the chair were eminent historians, Professors Alfred Zimmern and C.K. Webster. At that time, International Relations as a subject was little more than diplomatic history. During the next seven decades this subject has changed in nature and content. Today the analytical study of politics has replaced descriptive diplomatic history. The term International politics is now used for the new discipline that has been emerging since the second world war. It is more scientific, yet narrow, as compared to International Relations.

The two terms are even now sometimes used as synonyms. But, they have two distinct areas, or content, of study. Hans Morgenthau believes that “the core of international relations is international politics”, but a clear distinction between the two is to be made. International Relations, according to him, is much wider in scope than International Politics. Whereas politics among nations is, as Morgenthau says, struggle for power, international relations includes political, economic and cultural relations. Harold and Margaret Sprout opine that international relations include all human behaviour on one side of a national boundary affecting the human behaviour on the other side of the boundary. International politics, on the other hand, deals with conflicts and cooperation among nations essentially at political level. As Padelford and Lincoln define it, international politics is the interaction of state policies within the changing pattern of power relationship. Palmer and Perkins express similar views when they say that international politics is essentially concerned with the state system

Since international relations includes all types of relationships between sovereign states, it is wider, and international politics is narrower in scope. As students of IR, we shall indeed examine political conflicts and cooperation among states. But, we shall also study other aspect of relations among nations as well including economic inter-action and role of the non-state actor.

Changing Nature of International Relations

The context and nature of IR have undergone major changes after the Second World War. Traditionally, world politics was centered around Europe and relations among nations were largely conducted by officials of foreign offices in secrecy. The common man was hardly ever involved, and treaties were often kept secret. Today public opinion has begun to play an important role in the decision-making process in foreign offices, thus, changing completely the nature of international relations. Ambassadors, once briefed by their governments, were largely free to conduct relations according to the ground realities of the countries of their posting. Today, not only have nuclear weapons changed the nature of war and replaced erstwhile the balance of power by the balance of terror, but also the nature of diplomacy changed as well. We live in the jet age where the heads of state and government and their foreign ministers travel across the globe and personally establish contacts and conduct international relations. Before the First World War a traveller from India to Britain spent about 20 days in the sea voyage. Today, it takes less than 9 hours for a jet aircraft to fly from Delhi to London, telephones, fax machines, teleprinters and other electronic devices have brought all government leaders in direct contact. Hotline communications between Washington and Moscow, for example, keeps the top world leaders in constant touch. This has reduced the freedom of ambassadors who receive daily instructions from their governments.

Decolonisation has resulted in the emergence of a large number of sovereign states. The former colonies of the European Powers, including India, have become important actors on the stage of international relations. They were once silent spectators. Today, they participate in the conduct of world politics. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has created 15 members of the United Nations, instead of the previous three. Some of the very small countries like Nauru may have no power but they also have an equal voice in the General Assembly. Four very small countries viz. Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Andorra were admitted to the U.N. during 1990-93. The total number of U.N. members has gone up from 51 in 1945 to 185 in 1997. Thus, international relations are now conducted by such a large number of new nation- states. Besides, many non-state actors such as multinational corporations and transnational bodies like terrorist groups have been influencing international relations in a big way. With the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Super Power, the United States has emerged as the supreme monolithic power and can now dominate the international scene almost without any challenge. The Non-Alignment Movement ((NAM) still exists but with the dismemberment of one of its founders (i.e.: Yugoslavia) and the disappearance of rival power blocs, the role of the ‘Third World’ has changed along with that of NAM.

Why Study International Relations?

International Relations (IR), is closely related with several disciplines. These include History, Political Science, Law, Economics, and Geography. What is the utility of the study of IR as a separate subject? You know that no country in the World can live in isolation. Even when means of transportation and communication were primitive or much less developed than today, sovereign states did interact with each other. They cooperated at times, and had frequent conflicts which often led to wars. Relations among those states were generally studied by Historians and Political Scientists. Diplomatic History was usually studied for understanding relations among sovereign states.

During the second half of the twentieth century, revolution in the means of travel and communication has not only changed the nature of international relations, but made its study essential for every enlightened person.

We are today living in an interdependent state system. It is essential for all of us to have a clear idea of what is happening in the world. Political events are important, but even economic developments, trade, commerce and activities of actors like multinational corporations are no less significant. We live in an age of growing international cooperation. Therefore, not only do the activities of the United Nations and its numerous agencies affect all the nations and their peoples, but regional organisations like the European Union, South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) also play important roles in our lives. International terrorism has been a concern for the humankind and economic institutions like the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) affect international relations. The study of International Relations has therefore become highly useful and enlightening for students and others alike.

Scope of International Relations

Beginning with the study of law and diplomatic history, the scope of international relations has steadily expanded. With growing complexity of contacts between nations, the study of international organizations and institutions attracted the attention of scholars. The outbreak of the Second World War gave a strong stimulus to arca studies and strategic aspect of foreign policy. This led to efforts to understand better the dynamics of national liberation struggles and anti-colonial movements. The foundation of the United Nations during the war encouraged thinking about post-war restructuring of the relations among nations. The study of cooperation became important even as the study of conflict remained central. The immediate aftermath was marked by a constructive outlook. This is reflected in titles of books like Swords and Ploughshares written by Inis Claude. New topics like ideology and disarmament assumed unprecedented importance in the era of cold war. So did the system of alliances and regionalism. Contemporary international relations embrace the whole gamut of diplomatic history, international politics, international organisation, international law and arca studies. Writing about the contents of international relations, a few decades back, Palmer Perkins had said that the then international relations was a study of “the world community in transition.” This conclusion is largely true even today. The transition has not reached a terminal point. While the underlying factors of international relations have not changed, the international environment has changed and is still changing. The state system is undergoing modifications; a technological revolution has taken place in a very big way, new states of Asia and Africa are playing increasingly important roles. India, in particular, is in a position to assert and take a rigid stand, as in 1996 on the question of signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). There is also a “revolution of

rising expectations.” Thus, as Palmer and Perkins wrote, “old and new elements must be interwoven” in the contemporary international relations. “The focus is still the nation state system and inter-state relations; but the actions and interactions of many organisations and groups have also to be considered.”

The scope of international relations at the end of the twentieth century has become very vast indeed. The world has virtually become a “global village”, as interdependence of states has increased manifold. Economic relations between states, the role of international institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation today influences economic activity all over the world. The United Nations and its various agencies are engaged in numerous socio-economic and political activities. International terrorism is a cause of serious concern for the human existence. Multinational Corporations (MNCs), who are giant companies operating the world over, are important non-state actors of international relations. Thus, the scope of international relations has become vast, and, besides international politics, it embraces various other inter – State activities as well.

In the complex and interconnected landscape of contemporary international politics, state actors continue to play a pivotal role. Despite the increasing prominence of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, international organizations, and transnational advocacy groups, states remain the primary entities in shaping global affairs. Their ability to wield sovereignty, authority, and legitimacy distinguishes them as central players in issues ranging from security and diplomacy to economic cooperation and climate change. 

Sovereignty and the Primacy of States

The concept of sovereignty, rooted in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, establishes the state as the ultimate authority within its territory, free from external interference. This foundational principle underscores the enduring importance of state actors in international politics. States exercise legal and political authority over their populations, control resources, and manage relations with other states. For example, the recognition of state sovereignty by the United Nations is a cornerstone of international law, reinforcing the centrality of states in the global order.

State actors are the primary participants in diplomacy and the negotiation of treaties, agreements, and alliances. Through embassies, consulates, and international forums, they engage in dialogue to resolve disputes, promote interests, and foster cooperation. The role of state actors in maintaining peace and security is evident in the activities of the UN Security Council, where major powers such as the United States, China, and Russia wield significant influence through their permanent membership and veto power.

Economic Power and Trade

State actors play a critical role in shaping the global economy through policies, trade agreements, and participation in international institutions. Governments design fiscal and monetary policies that influence global markets and affect the flow of goods, services, and capital. States also negotiate and enforce trade agreements, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which define the rules of international trade and investment.

Moreover, state actors are key participants in organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank, where they advocate for their national interests while addressing global economic challenges. The economic policies of major powers, such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the United States’ role in setting global financial standards, demonstrate how states shape international economic dynamics. The BRI, for instance, has expanded China’s influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe by financing infrastructure projects, fostering economic interdependence, and advancing its geopolitical ambitions.

Security and Military Power

In contemporary international politics, state actors are the primary providers of national and international security. They maintain standing armies, develop defense strategies, and invest in technologies to protect their sovereignty and citizens. The significance of state actors in security is underscored by their roles in alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), where member states collaborate to deter threats and respond to crises.

States are also central to efforts aimed at addressing nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and cyber warfare. For example, the United States and Russia have been instrumental in shaping arms control agreements like the New START Treaty, which limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads. Similarly, state-led coalitions, such as the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, demonstrate how governments coordinate efforts to combat transnational threats.

However, the militarization of international politics has raised concerns about the balance of power among states. The rise of China as a military power, exemplified by its growing presence in the South China Sea, and the aggressive actions of Russia, including its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, illustrate how state actors can both contribute to and disrupt global stability.

Environmental Diplomacy and Global Challenges

State actors are crucial in addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and migration. Their participation in multilateral agreements and initiatives is essential for coordinated action. For instance, the Paris Agreement, signed by nearly 200 countries, represents a landmark effort to combat climate change by committing states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite challenges, such as the temporary withdrawal of the United States under the Trump administration, the agreement underscores the importance of state actors in tackling global environmental issues.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, state actors played a central role in implementing public health measures, securing vaccine supplies, and coordinating international responses. Initiatives like COVAX, supported by various governments, aimed to ensure equitable vaccine distribution, highlighting the ability of states to mobilize resources for global health crises.

Migration, driven by conflicts, economic disparities, and environmental changes, is another area where state actors exert influence. States manage immigration policies, provide asylum to refugees, and participate in international frameworks such as the Global Compact for Migration to address the complex dimensions of human mobility.

Geopolitical Rivalries and Regional Influence

The actions of powerful states often shape regional and global dynamics, as seen in the geopolitical rivalries between major powers. The United States and China, for example, are engaged in a strategic competition that encompasses trade, technology, military power, and ideological influence. China’s rise as a global power has challenged the unipolarity of the post-Cold War era, while the United States seeks to maintain its leadership through alliances like the Quad and the AUKUS pact.

Regional powers, such as India, Brazil, and South Africa, also play significant roles in their respective areas. India’s leadership in South Asia, exemplified by its economic partnerships and security initiatives, demonstrates how state actors shape regional orders. Similarly, Brazil’s role in Latin America and South Africa’s influence in Africa highlight the importance of middle powers in advancing development and addressing regional challenges.

Challenges to State Sovereignty

While state actors remain central to international politics, their sovereignty and authority face significant challenges in the contemporary era. Globalization, technological advancements, and the rise of non-state actors have blurred traditional boundaries, limiting the ability of states to act independently. For example, multinational corporations, such as Amazon and Google, often wield economic power that rivals that of small states, influencing policies on taxation, labor, and data privacy.

Transnational issues like cybercrime, climate change, and terrorism require multilateral solutions, often reducing the autonomy of individual states. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and advocacy groups also challenge state authority by pressuring governments to adhere to human rights standards, environmental commitments, and social justice goals.

Furthermore, internal challenges, such as populism, political polarization, and economic inequality, have weakened some states’ capacities to engage effectively in international politics. The rise of populist leaders, such as Donald Trump in the United States and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, has led to isolationist policies that undermine multilateralism and global cooperation.

Conclusion

State actors continue to play a central role in contemporary international politics, shaping the global order through their actions in diplomacy, security, economics, and environmental governance. Their ability to exercise sovereignty, project power, and negotiate solutions to complex challenges underscores their enduring importance. However, the evolving global landscape, characterized by interconnectedness and the rise of non-state actors, has introduced new dynamics that challenge traditional notions of state power. To remain effective, state actors must adapt to these changes, balancing national interests with the demands of an increasingly interdependent world. Despite these challenges, states remain the cornerstone of the international system, navigating the complexities of modern global politics while striving to address pressing global issues.

Morgenthau has explained six principles of his Realist Theory. These together constitute the essence of his Political Realism.

First Principle

Politics is governed by Objective Laws which have roots in Human Nature:

The first principle of political realism holds that “politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.” It is as such necessary to understand these laws and build a rational theory of international politics. “These laws cannot be refuted and challenged. Taking these as the basis, we can formulate a rational theory of International Politics; Political Realism believes that international politics operates on the basis of certain objective laws.”

Facts of Human Nature:

For knowing the objective laws of human nature, we must analyze the facts of human relations. Human nature is fairly constant and therefore a review of the history of human relations and actions can help us to know these objective laws. These can be then used for evaluating the nature of relations. History of human relations can provide us facts for understanding politics. This review however, must be empirical as well as logical. This dual test alone can lead us to formulate a rational and valid theory of politics.

As such, the first principle of Morgenthau’s Realist Theory of International Politics holds that politics is governed by some objective laws which have their roots in human nature. By understanding these objective laws, we can understand and study International Politics. For knowing these objective laws we have to study the history of human relations. Through this an empirical and rational theory of foreign policy can be formulated which can guide the actions of states in international relations.

Second Principle

National Interest defined in terms of National Power:

(i) The master key and the core of Morgenthau’s Realism is its second principle. This principle holds that nations always define and act for securing their national interests by means of power.

“The main sign-post that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power. This concept provides the link between reason trying to understand international politics and the facts to be understood.” —Morgenthau

It is this aspect which highlights the autonomous character of International Politics. Nations always try to secure the goals of their interests which are always defined in terms of power.

(ii) National Interest is always secured by the use of National Power. Each nation conceptualizes its national interests in terms of power and then acts to secure these by means of power. History fully supports this view. A national interest not backed by power exists only on paper and in imagination. The only correct way to conceptualize and define national interest is in terms of power.

History tells us that nations have always acted on the basis of power. Foreign policy- makers always regard power as the central fact of politics. Foreign policy decisions makers always formulate policies on its basis. Political realism assumes that “statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears out this assumption.” This principle helps us to analyze realistically all steps that state-men have taken or are going to take in future.

(iii) Little concern with Motives and Ideological Preferences. Political realism avoids two popular fallacies in respect of the behaviour of statesmen. These are:

(a) The concern with motives, and

(b) The concern with ideological preferences.

(a) Little concern with Motives: A study of foreign policy through a study of the motives of the statesmen is bound to be futile and deceptive. It would be futile because motives are most deceptive and distorted by the interests and emotions of both the actor and the observer. These are frequently beyond recognition. Further, history tells us that there is no exact and necessary correlation between the quality of motives and quality of foreign policy.

There are many instances which reveal that good motives have very often led to wrong and unsuccessful policies. Neville Chamberlains policy of appeasement was definitely inspired by a good motive—to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War, however, it failed. On the other hand, Winston Churchill’s policies were based upon national interest and power, and were more successful in actual operation.

Political realism does not give much weightage to motives of the statesmen. On the other hand it seeks to judge their actions on the basis of actual performance towards the securing of goals of national interest of their nations.

(b) Little concern with Ideology: Political realism rejects the fallacy of equating the foreign policy of a statesman with ideological or philosophical or political sympathies of the statesman. Ideology is very often used as a cover or a smoke-screen to cover actions which are nationalistic and designed to secure or increase national power. A faith in the ideological preferences of the statesman as the basis for judging the actions of the state, is bound to be misleading.

Sino-Soviet conflict of 1955-65 was not really an ideological conflict, as it appeared to be. On the contrary it was a conflict of interests between these two communist states. The basis for the origin of Sino-Soviet conflict was neither the clash of ideologies nor the personalities of Mao and Khrushchev. It was really a clash of interests in world politics.

This also applied to the cold war conflict between the USA and the erstwhile USSR. It was basically a clash of interests with certain outward ideological manifestations. Chinese foreign policy always declares itself to be a policy of peaceful coexistence but in reality it has been a policy for expanding the influence (power) of China in world politics.

(iv) National Interest and National Power as the Determinants of Foreign Policy. No doubt personality of the statesman, his ideas and prejudices do have some impact on the nature of foreign policy, yet in the main, the foreign policy of a nation is always based upon considerations of national interest conceived in terms of national power. A rational theory of foreign policy seeks to present a theory based upon experience and actual facts and not upon motives and ideological preferences.

Political realism is not totally opposed to political motives and moral principles in international relations. It accepts that these play a role in international relations. However, it regards national interest and national power as the key determinants of all decisions and policies. In it, the approach is that of a photographer who photographs whatever he actually sees and not of a painter who imagines the pose and paints the portrait.

The second principle of Morgenthau’s Realist Theory is projected as the master key to international politics.

“It imposes intellectual discipline upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject-matter of politics and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible.” —Morgenthau

The concept of ‘interest’ defined in terms of ‘power’ carries political realism into the arena of international politics and guides the path of the researchers.

Third Principle

Interest is always Dynamic:

Political realism believes in the universal validity of the concept of interest defined in terms of power. The policies and actions of a nation are always governed by national interest. The idea of national interest is the essence of politics and is unaffected by the circumstances of time and place.

However, the content of national interest is always changing in nature and scope. It is not static. It changes with changes in political and social environment. National interest is dynamic and has to be continuously analyzed for examining the policies and actions of a state. The kind of interest which determines political action in a particular period of history depends upon the political and cultural context within which a foreign policy is formulated.

The same observation applies to the concept of power. The national power of a nation is always dynamic and it changes with the changes in environment in which it operates for securing national interests. For example, security has been always a primary part of India’s national interest but the nature of security that India has been trying to secure from time to time has been changing. Similarly, the national power of India has all also been dynamic.

As such, national interest defined in terms of national power has to be repeatedly and continuously analyzed for realistically analyzing the course of international relations. Political realism stands for understanding the nature of international relations through a continuous and regular analysis of the factors of national power and national interest which always determine the nature and scope of relations among nations.

Fourth Principle

Abstract Moral Principles cannot be applied to Politics:

Political realism realizes the importance of moral principles but holds that in their abstract and universal formulations these cannot be applied to state actions. The moral significance of political action is undisputed but the universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states, unless these are analyzed in the light of specific conditions of time and space. Moral principles do not determine policies and actions of states. These are simply a source of some influence.

Realism believes that states are not expected to observe the same standards of morality as are binding upon and observed by men. The individual can say for himself, “Let justice be done even if the whole world perishes”, but the state has no right to say so. A state cannot sacrifice the liberty or security or other fundamental national interests for following moral principles. Politics is not ethics and the ruler is not a moralist. The primary function of a state is to satisfy and protect the demands of national interest by means of national power.

Prudence as the Guide:

However, this does not mean that political realism is devoid of morality. It accepts that moral principles can exercise an influence on state actions and as such their role and significance has to be analyzed and evaluated. But in doing so prudence has to be observed. Realism, considers prudence—the weighing of the consequences of alternative political actions—to be the supreme virtue in politics.” Universal moral principles must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and space and only then these should be prudently applied to the actions of states.

Fifth Principle

Difference between Moral Aspirations of a Nation and the Universal Moral Principles:

Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral principles that govern the universe. It refuses to accept that the national interests and policies of any particular nation reflect universally applied moral principles.

Each nation tries to cover its national interests under the cloak of several moral principles. An identification of national policies as the true manifestations of moral principles is bound to be misleading and politically pernicious. The US anti-terror policy is governed by its own national interest and not really based on the concept of making the world safe for freedom and democracy. A foreign policy is always based on national interest and national power, and not on morality,

(ii) Nations are actors engaged in securing their respective national interests and are not the followers of moral laws. The moral laws that govern the universe do not apply to their actions. Their actions are always based upon national interests as conceived in term of power. The policy of a nation as such cannot be equated and should not be confused with universal moral principles.

Sixth Principle

Autonomy of International Politics:

Morgenthau Political Realism accepts the autonomy of International Politics as a discipline. On the basis of the above five principles, it is ascertained by Morgenthau that there exists a real and profound difference between political realism and other approaches and theories. Political realism has its distinctive intellectual and moral attitude towards political matters. It maintains the autonomy of the political sphere.

“A political realist always thinks in terms of interest defined as power, as an economist thinks of interest defined as wealth; the lawyer, of the conformity of action with legal rules and the moralist, of the conformity of action with moral principles.”

Political realism is neither idealistic nor legalistic and nor even moralistic in its approach to International Politics. It is concerned with national interest defined in terms of power as its sole concern. For example, political realism is not concerned with legalistic and moralistic angles of American decision to go to war against Iraq. It is concerned with the factors that resulted into such a U.S. policy and the actual consequences of this policy. It interprets this U.S. policy decisions on the basis of the national interests of the USA.

Realism seeks to study the struggle for power among nations in which every nation tries to maintain or increase its power. Thus, Political Realism has a distinctive approach and subject- matter. It stands for political standards for political actions and subordinates all other standards to political standards. Political Realism believes in the autonomy of International Politics.

To sum up, we can say, Political Realism regards international politics as struggle for power among nations whereby each nation tries to secure its national interest. It seeks to build a rational and realistic theory of International Politics and for this, regards the concept of “interest defined as power” as the benchmark.

It emphasizes the study of factors and consequences of political policies and gives secondary importance to motives in international relations. It refuses to use universal moral principles for judging state actions and instead advocates dependence on prudence for analyzing policies and facts of international politics.

Further, political realism believes that the foreign policy of each nation is really based upon national interest and not upon moral principles. The latter are used as covers to buttress the goals of national interests. Finally, political realism accepts and advocates the autonomy of international politics as a discipline studying national interest defined in terms of power.

It defines international politics as struggle for power. Regarding the question of securing peace, Morgenthau advocates recourse to peace through accommodation. For this he accepts diplomacy and devices of power management as the ideal and effective means.

The Realist theory of International Relations (IR) emerged as one of the most influential frameworks for understanding global politics, especially in the aftermath of the Second World War. Rooted in ancient political thought but shaped by the specific historical and geopolitical realities of the 20th century, realism emphasizes the role of power, state sovereignty, and an anarchic international system in shaping the behavior of states. The development of realist theory after World War II marked a significant evolution in its assumptions, scope, and methodologies, adapting to the challenges of a bipolar world dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union.

Foundations and the Legacy of Classical Realism

While the roots of realism can be traced back to ancient thinkers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, its modern iteration began to take shape in the mid-20th century. The devastation of World War II discredited the idealist and liberal perspectives that had dominated international politics after World War I, such as the reliance on collective security and the League of Nations. The failure of these frameworks to prevent aggression by Axis powers highlighted the need for a more pragmatic and power-centric approach.

Hans Morgenthau, often regarded as the father of modern realism, played a pivotal role in shaping post-war realist theory. His seminal work, “Politics Among Nations” (1948), argued that international relations are governed by immutable laws rooted in human nature. Morgenthau emphasized that states act in their own national interest, defined primarily in terms of power, and that morality or ideology often plays a secondary role. This classical realism framed international politics as a perpetual struggle for survival and dominance in an anarchic system, where no overarching authority exists to enforce rules or norms.

Structural Realism and the Rise of Neo-Realism

By the late 1950s and 1960s, realism began to evolve in response to critiques of its reliance on human nature and its perceived lack of scientific rigor. Scholars like Kenneth Waltz advanced a more systematic and structural approach to realism, which came to be known as neo-realism or structural realism. Waltz’s groundbreaking book, “Theory of International Politics” (1979), marked a significant shift in realist thought.

Neo-realism departed from Morgenthau’s focus on human nature and instead attributed state behavior to the structure of the international system. Waltz argued that the defining feature of the international system is anarchy, meaning the absence of a central authority to regulate state interactions. This anarchic structure compels states to prioritize self-help, leading to power competition regardless of their internal characteristics or leadership.

One of the core contributions of neo-realism is its emphasis on the distribution of power within the international system. Waltz categorized systems based on their polarity—unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar—and argued that bipolar systems, like the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, were the most stable due to their predictability and reduced risk of miscalculation. Neo-realism also introduced a more scientific approach to IR, using models and hypotheses to explain patterns of state behavior.

Key Debates Within Realism: Offensive vs. Defensive Realism

In the decades following World War II, realist theory continued to diversify, leading to the development of sub-theories like offensive realism and defensive realism. These variations sought to address questions about the motivations of states and the causes of conflict in an anarchic system.

Defensive realism, championed by scholars like Robert Jervis and Stephen Walt, posits that states seek to maintain their security rather than maximize power. Defensive realists argue that excessive power accumulation can provoke security dilemmas, where the defensive measures of one state are perceived as threats by others, leading to arms races and instability. For example, the Cold War arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union exemplified this dynamic.

Offensive realism, articulated by John Mearsheimer, offers a contrasting view, arguing that states are inherently driven to maximize power and dominate their rivals. In his book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” (2001), Mearsheimer contends that great powers are perpetually in competition because hegemony is the only guarantee of survival in an anarchic system. This perspective is often invoked to explain aggressive state behavior, such as Nazi Germany’s expansionism during World War II or China’s assertive policies in the South China Sea.

Realism During the Cold War

The geopolitical realities of the Cold War era provided fertile ground for the application and refinement of realist theory. The global competition between the United States and the Soviet Union reinforced realist assumptions about the centrality of power and the inevitability of conflict in an anarchic world. Realists viewed the balance of power as a critical mechanism for maintaining stability, with both superpowers seeking to prevent the emergence of regional hegemons and engaging in proxy wars to preserve their spheres of influence.

The concept of deterrence, central to Cold War strategy, also reflects realist principles. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), based on the rational calculation of costs and benefits, exemplifies how realists understand state behavior. Both superpowers engaged in a nuclear arms race not out of irrational aggression but to secure their survival by deterring adversaries from initiating conflict.

Critiques and Challenges to Realism

Despite its dominance, realism faced significant challenges during and after the Cold War. Critics argued that realism’s focus on power and state-centric analysis failed to account for the rise of non-state actors, economic interdependence, and the role of international institutions. The emergence of theories like liberal institutionalism and constructivism offered alternative perspectives that emphasized cooperation, norms, and the impact of ideas in shaping international politics.

The end of the Cold War in 1991 further challenged realist predictions. The peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent unipolarity of the international system, with the United States as the sole superpower, appeared to contradict realism’s emphasis on perpetual power struggles. Realists, however, adapted by highlighting the role of unipolarity in shaping post-Cold War dynamics and warning of potential challenges to U.S. hegemony.

Realism in Contemporary International Relations

In the 21st century, realism remains highly relevant, particularly in understanding great power competition and regional conflicts. The rise of China as a global power and its rivalry with the United States exemplifies realist dynamics, with both states engaging in strategic competition to secure their interests. Similarly, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its 2022 invasion of Ukraine reflect realist concerns about security, territoriality, and the balance of power.

Realist theory also provides insights into ongoing issues like nuclear proliferation, with states such as North Korea and Iran pursuing nuclear capabilities as a means of deterring adversaries. The realist focus on state sovereignty and national interest continues to shape debates on issues ranging from climate change to the global economic order.

Conclusion

The development of the realist theory of International Relations after the Second World War reflects its adaptability and enduring relevance in explaining the complexities of global politics. From the foundational ideas of classical realism to the systematic analyses of neo-realism and the debates between offensive and defensive realists, realism has evolved to address the changing dynamics of power and conflict. While it has faced critiques and competition from alternative theories, realism remains a cornerstone of IR, offering valuable insights into the behavior of states in an anarchic and unpredictable world. Its emphasis on power, sovereignty, and the constraints of the international system ensures its continued applicability in analyzing both historical and contemporary challenges in international politics.