Realism Theory in International Relations Research Paper (Essay Sample)

University
Realism theory in international relations research
Course
Date
Name
Realism theory in international relations research
Introduction
The concept of international relations contains a few dominant ideas one the primary argument is realism. Realism in international relations is referred to as political realism; this is in line with the view of international politics which considers it to be both competition and conflicting. Realism usually negates idealism or liberalism; this is because idealism or liberalism tends to place emphasis on cooperation. Realist regards the main players in the international environment as countries states and nations, and that they are interested the pursuit of security, they also struggle for national interest and struggle for power. The disadvantage of the realism is that focuses so much on self-interest and power this also affects the pertinence of among the community of states
A state's politics is the cradle of its authority and the laws that govern it, while international politics is sometimes looked at as the place of injustice and characterized by current and impending conflict between and among states (Preston and Clarke 2004). Some realist still holds the notion that there is still an amount of ethic practiced in international relations. There is a difference between classical realism as described in the 20th century by the following theorist Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr and radical or extreme realism. Although the realism upholds that concept and practice of national interest, this is not cunning precept that any and everything is a justified action of a state, nation or country (Bull 1995).
The classical realists make efforts not to overlook the importance of good judgment in global governmental affairs; they are disparaging of moralist theories of conversations that do not put into consideration political issues. Realism consists of some methods that have been drawn up in work compiled by the founding father of realism Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. The 20th-century classical realism has done a lot to change the view of realism by putting in place a more logical and comprehensive way to deal with issues concerning international relations, classic and neoclassic school of thought both agreed that realism is important and can be a useful tool in deals with issues arising in international relations
Realism theory's view on the origins and nature of terrorism as a current global problem.
Realism is a vital and an essential school of thought; this is because it provides a conceptual and direct understanding of international activities but also possesses a narrow view of such incidents. Contemporary world politicking issues in the 21st century do not only affect the account of extraordinary power contentions. While control policy issues, arms management, and vital assets are most likely remain matters of national significance, so also should excessively counter-terrorism, a sound economy, place the high emphasis on human rights, and all have suggestions for domestic and international security (Preston and Clarke 2004). To extend these plans, there is a need for a growing opportunity. International relations can also be referred to a choice of the state because a state can determine who and not to relate with, to understand the complexity of world politics after the 9/11 era, requires a much more than just a shallow consideration of on screen issues
Approaches and decisions of both foreign and local policymakers should be re-arranged to oblige the dynamic patterns, innovations, and technology. To get this done, leaders and political leaders must handle delicate power on an everyday premise. World policymakers and leaders can today do more in the international matters by seeking the attention of others .i.e. making other leaders see things from their point of view rather than forcing them to accept and conform to dictated policies. Objectives are all effortlessly accomplished and acknowledged when advancing through an honest legal institution as opposed to driving them on others by the use of force
Countries irrespective of their sizes and the amount of resource they control will frequently be ideally serviced by seeking to advance her interest using multilateral systems. There are still some policymakers in the United States who believe that because it possesses an enormous amount of hard power it can use this power as a means of getting other countries to do what it wants. This assumption has led to the government of United states getting rid of the UN and NATO on realizing that they didn't share its view on Iraq, the dominant nation in the historical backdrop of world legislative issues after the times of the Romans is discovering that we can't get what we needs without collaborating with other different countries and states. Within the first eight month period of the George Bush administration, the United States focus on the old form of legislation issues, concentrated solely on real politic closures. The 9/11 attacks served as a wake-up call and arrival to a more mind boggling comprehension of international governmental issues and realism, the Bush administration: immediately after the attack, declared other strategies connecting the United States national security with outside issues.
The Bush government, unfortunately, quickly came back to its previous propensities. At the end of the day, hard power was given priority over soft power; military force was given prominence over ethical international policies and laws that govern global landscape. Therefore, the underlying achievements of the fight against terrorism are currently eclipsed by the disappointments of the US-led war in Iraq. To understand the complex functionality of international issues and affairs, there is a need for an open mind, and accepting the submissions of realism. This will be a major tool to defeating terrorism; realism treats friends as such and treats foes and enemies.
How a realist would address terrorism
The United States government set up a commission to look at the cause of the 9/11 attacks. The commission responsibility was to look at what actually went wrong with home land security in the United States of America. The commission was also saddled with the responsibility of determining why the United States was hit by such a massive attack. A group of notable US citizens were arrayed before the commission, they all gave their views on the cause of the event, top ranking officer of the United State's security council were also arrayed before this commission as opposed to the immunity clause that prevents white house staff and key government functionaries from appearing before such commission. The commission was able to look at the group of strategies adopted and used by Osama Laden and Al Qaeda, the commission was able also to assess the Psychology and militant system preceding the attack of September 11. This was regardless of the set up detachment of the principle of separation of power that prevents a white house state from testifying, this above situation points out how a realist will handles matters related to terrorism: a realist does not consider the extent they have to go to get things done, all that matters to them are getting it done.
Realism has maintained a high level of importance when it comes to international relations. According to Thucydides (460–411 B.C.E.) a realist sets: in the first place, the essential operators in international relation issues are countries, nations, and states, particularly significant forces; S...