1. Introduction

2. Basic theoretical assumptions indicating at the normative character of the Realism theory

3. Historical facts revealing the normative nature of the Realism theory

4. Conclusion

5. Bibliography


Introduction

International relations and politics have always been very complicated and provoked many researchers to build up a theory that could effectively and clearly explain the basic principles of international politics. Such strive for scientific explanation of international politics led to the appearance of numerous theories but, unfortunately, many of them are contradictive and practically all of them are often criticized by the opponents.

One of the most popular theories is the Realism theory which has been carefully worked out and remains quite popular nowadays. At the same time, on analyzing this theory one may come to the idea that it is purely normative theory, which can be applied to international politics but in practice this theory tends to be rather figurative since the basic principles according to which the state should act often differ from what the state actually does. This is why it is very important to reveal the normative nature of the Realism theory in order to better understand it and to reveal the dualistic character of the international politics and theoretical assumptions applied in real life.

Basic theoretical assumptions indicating at the normative character of the Realism theory

Obviously, the Realism theory is one of the most popular theories concerning international politics. At the same time, this theory is not perfect and is a normative by its nature. The main reason for such a statement is the fact that its basic assumptions mainly explains the motives and reasons of the international politics but not its consequences that makes it practically impossible to foresee what the state will be doing. In other words it is basically focused on the standards of the international politics and at what states traditionally aim at, why and by means of what they achieve these aims but it does not build a clear structure, a formula with the help of which the actions of the state in international politics may be explained and forecasted.

In order to reveal the normative nature of the Realism theory it is necessary to dwell upon its main theoretical assumptions and analyze them. First of all, it should be pointed out that according to the Realism theory one of the main concepts in international politics is the concept of interests defined in terms of power. These interests may vary largely from personal interests of politics to national interests of the whole states which are considered to be actors in international politics. In fact this theory suggests that in order to understand the reasons and motives, which force statesmen act in this or that way, it is necessary to understand the statesmen way of thinking and their personal interests and motives.

However, it seems to be obvious that it is futile and even deceptive “to search for the clue to foreign policy exclusively in the motives of statesmen” (Morgenthau 1996:221). It is so because motives are probably the most illusive of psychological data, they are often distorted and consequently they can hardly be explained from a scientific or empirical point of view because often an individual cannot simply explain his/her own motives.

On the other hand, if the motives of statesmen were clear it would hardly help a researcher to understand international politics for “the knowledge of the statesmen’s motives may give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his foreign policies” (Morgenthau 1996:373). In actuality there is no correlation between the quality of motive and the quality of international policy since they may vary significantly. It means that good intentions or motives of a statesmen do not necessarily mean a morally positive or politically successful international politics.

Extrapolating this assumption on international politics, such a kind of interests either personal or national ones cannot be forecasted and it is practically impossible to explain what a state is currently doing or what it will be doing on the basis of interests, resulting from motives. To put it more precisely, how one can define the national interests since every individual may have a different view on national interests and even if the national interests are defined there are a lot of doubts concerning the objectivity of such a definition, while the objectivity is the main condition of reliable scientific research or empirical analysis.

Furthermore, another basic point of the Realism theory assumes that “its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category that is universally valid” (Morgenthau 1998:381). However, it has been already mentioned above that motives and consequently interests cannot be objective but, on the contrary, they are rather subjective. Moreover, it cannot be universally valid because, unfortunately, there are only a very few principles that can be defined as universal and none of them may be fully refer to politics. At the same time to a significant extent it provokes contradictions within the Realism theory for, if there are universally valid interests, than national interests should be universal as well, while they are not.

At this respect the concept of power is also very important for the Realism theory, for according to it, power “covers all social relationships… from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one mind controls another” (Morgenthau 1996:420), and the ultimate goal is the control of a man over another man.

In order to sustain stability in the world, there should exist a balance of power but it should be pointed out that the Realism theory does not assume that “the contemporary conditions under which foreign policy operates, with their extreme instability and the ever present threat of large-scale violence, cannot be changed” (Morgenthau 1996:467).

Furthermore, the Realism theory pays a lot of attention to the moral significance of international political actions as well as a political action at large. Obviously, the notion of morality is also quite abstract and hardly applicable to empirical or purely scientific approaches to the research of the international politics. Moreover, the analysis of history of international politics at any stage will reveal the split between universal moral principles and the actions of politics or states.

However, the followers of the Realism theory indicate that the theory “refuses to identify the moral aspiration of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe” (Stevenson 1997:497). In such a situation, it is still possible to estimate that the Realism theory is rather a normative theory since according to this theory there should be some moral laws, particular for each state and corresponding to its national interests but it means that it is impossible to have a concrete set of moral laws, i.e. universal morality. Moreover, according to this theory morality basically depends on national interests and struggle for power that devaluates morality. As a result, if the realist point of view is right, it will be impossible to clearly identify moral laws which may be applied for this or that country because each country will have its own moral laws and principles dictated by national interests which may naturally be different from those of others countries as their national interests do. Consequently, according to this theory, what is moral for one country may be immoral for another and there is no receipt to find out what the moral principles and laws are for a definite country that makes international politics based rather on national interests only and not on moral principles, that make international politics to a certain extent chaotic and consequently they can be hardly scientifically justified in terms of the Realism theory because it will be impossible to apply universal moral principles or laws to the clash of national interests.

Historical facts revealing the normative nature of the Realism theory

Naturally, purely theoretic discussion concerning the normative nature of the Realism theory is not sufficient and it needs some practical examples in order to be more persuasive and such examples may be easily found when the theory is extrapolated to the history of international politics. At this respect the basic theoretical assumptions mentioned above should be supported by some evidences.

For instance, speaking about interests and motives, as extremely important points of the Realism theory, it is quite useful to refer to the history, notably foreign policy of the UK government headed by Chamberlain. One can hardly deny that in general his foreign politics of appeasement were inspired by good motives, he was probably “less motivated by considerations of personal power than were many other British prime ministers, and he sought to preserve peace and to assure happiness of all concerned” (Stevenson 1997:538) but, in contrast to possibly good motives, his policy helped to make the World War II inevitable. On the other hand, Churchill’s motives were “less universal in scope and more narrowly directed toward personal and national power” (Morgenthau 1998:455), but the foreign policy, based on such motives, was superior in moral and political quality to those pursued by his predecessor. These examples reveals the extent to which the motives of politicians may be different from the international policies held by these politicians and it only supports the idea that realists’ idea about the power of motives is rather normative than empirical.

As for the power in a larger sense, it should be pointed out that the balance of power is indeed “a perennial element of all pluralistic societies… yet it is capable of operating, as it does in the United States, under the condition of relative stability and peaceful conflict” (Morgenthau 1996:521). Therefore, if the factors that have given rise to these conditions can be duplicated in the national scene, similar conditions of stability and peace will than prevail there. Consequently, the Realism theory is rather on assumptions that are not based on the historical experience and deep scientific analysis, otherwise, the ideas of constant conflict of national interests and struggle for more power in the world would be revised as lacking both purely scientific and empirical support. However, it is necessary to admit that realists basically develop a theory which basic assumptions concerning power and national interests, for instance, may be rather viewed as possible models or standards of behavior of different states in international politics and, as a result, the theory at large acquires a normative character.

Probably even more arguable from empiric and scientific point of view are the moral assumptions developed by realists which, as it has already mentioned lack of objectivity, and historically are quite doubtful. At this respect the problem is aggravated for despite the fact that “the political realist is not unaware of the existence and relevance of standards of thought other than political ones”, he cannot but “subordinate these other standards to those of politics” (Brooks 1997:445). As a result moral principles, for instance are often subordinated to international politics’ standards that, in actuality, may not found historical background. For instance, in 1939 the USSR attacked Finland that confronted the UK and France with two issues one legal and moral, the other political. From the legal and moral point of view the USSR violated the Covenant of the League of Nation and should be penalised according to norms of international laws, while the national interests as one of the basic notions of international politics according to the Realism theory implies concerning the moral principles of the states, as well as purely legal issues. However, France and the UK did not intervene in the conflict and consequently their actions contradicted to legal issues and were morally doubtful.

Probably a more vivid example of split between moral and politics that reveals the normative nature of the Realism theory concerns the UK foreign policy during the World War I. Great Britain went to war with Germany in August 1914 because Germany had violated the neutrality of Belgium. This actions from the part of the UK may be viewed from the position of realists and moralists. From the realistic point of view, for centuries it had been axiomatic for British foreign policy to prevent the control of the Low Countries by a hostile power. In such interpretation, it was not the violation of Belgium’s neutrality that forced the UK to enter the war but strengthening of Germany was the main reason for such a decision. Probably, if the violator was another country but Germany Great Britain would not probably react in such a way for as Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary during that period said: “If France violated Belgian neutrality in a war against Germany, it is doubtful whether England or Russia would move a finger to maintain Belgian neutrality, while if the neutrality of Belgium was violated by Germany, it is probable that the converse would be the case” (Lynn-Jones 1998:157). This statement obviously support realist viewpoint. Nonetheless, there is also a legalistic and moralistic view on this situation. According to this position, the violation of Belgian neutrality was obligatory and necessary at any case because of legal and moral laws and principles “regardless of the interests at stake and the identity of the violator, justified British and, for that matter, American intervention” (Lynn-Jones 1998:157). The latter indicates at the superiority of legality and morality over national interests in the case of intervention to protect Belgian neutrality that emphasizes the importance of morality and legal issues in international politics at least equal to the importance of national interests defended by realists, which obviously lack empirical analysis of the historical experience based on a thorough scientific research.
Conclusion

Thus, taking into consideration all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that the Realism theory is a purely normative theory since its basic principles do not provide ample opportunities to build up a clear, scientifically and empirically grounded, picture of the current situation in international politics neither it provides real opportunities for qualitative forecasting of perspectives development of international relations between countries. In fact the position of realist may be viewed as the position of researchers aiming at the explanation of the motives and reasons making states lead certain foreign policy. At any rate, the realism theory, regardless its normative nature, is worth noting since it helps a researcher to better understand the reasons, motives and hidden causes of some actions in foreign policy of different states as well as international politics at large. At the same time, the theory can hardly reveal the consequences of such a policy.

Bibliography:

1. Brooks, Stephen G. “Dueling realisms (realism in international relations)” International Organization Summer 1997 v51 n3 p445(33).

2. Charleston, P.F. Theories of International Relations. LA: McGraw Hill, 1999.

3. Elman, Miriam Fendius. “The foreign policies of small states: challenging neorealism in its own backyard.” British Journal of Political Science April 1995 v25 n2 p171(47).

4. Huth, Paul et al. “The escalation of great power militarized disputes: testing rational deterrence theory and structural realism.” American Political Science Review Sept 1993 v87 n3 p609(15).

5. Lynn-Jones, Sean M. “Realism and America’s rise. (theory of realism and its application to the study of international relations)” International Security Fall 1998 v23 n2 p157(26).

6. Moens, Alexander. “Christian realism: A normative tradition for international politics.” International Journal of Politics and Ethics Summer 2001 v1 i2 p105(18).

7. Morgenthau, Hans. Realism and International Politics. New York: Routledge, 1998.

8. Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. LA: McGraw Hill, 1996.

9. Nincic, Miroslav. “The national interest and its interpretation.” The Review of Politics Winter 1999 v61 i1 p29(2).

10. Powell, Robert. “Anarchy in international relations theory: the neorealist-neoliberal debate.” International Organization Spring 1994 v48 n2 p313-344.

11. Reiter, Dan. “Learning, realism, and alliances: the weight of the shadow of the past.” World Politics July 1994 v46 n4 p490(37).

12. Stevenson, L. International Politics and Realism Theory. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Custom essay writing services ESSAY-911.com. Buy essay online!