3. Would you agree that Realism remains the most convincing paradigm for interpreting international relations? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Realism as a theory of international relations?

Realism may be defined as the acceptance and analysis of the inevitable conflict between competing powers within the international system. This international system is inherently anarchic, with no power higher than the actors within it. The Realist is principally concerned with the highest power within the international system, that being the State. This State is presumed to be both rational and self-interested, primarily concerned with its own continued existence. This essay will discuss the United Nations, human nature, [third point], and ultimately argue that Realism remains the most compelling and internally consist theory of international relations.

One of the core tenants of Realism is the anarchic nature of the international political system, all supposed supranational authority being nothing but an illusion. The most obvious argument against this position is the existence of the United Nations, the supposed higher power of the international field. But this is, to repeat, nothing but an illusion. Not one member of the United Nations is participating out of benevolence or charity towards competing States. Further, not one member would continue to participate if it was understood to be detrimental to their own interests. Liberals might argue that this is an example of the natural evolution of cooperation as a positive good amongst nations, but this does not stand to reason. While the UN is a fundamentally liberal institution, it is not only compatible with Realism, it is ultimately a compelling example of Realism in action.

Realists believe that States naturally act in their own self-interest; put in economic terms, if the benefits of a given action outweigh the costs, the action ought to be taken. This is apparent in the case of the UN, an institution in which States, especially large ones, can effectively impose their will upon the world at large. A common example of said imposition is the organisation of multilateral sanctions upon States engaging in unfavourable conduct. This allows States to put pressure on foreign powers without jeopardising their own interests. Indeed, action for large nations in the UN comes at precious little cost. If one is fortunate enough to be endowed with membership of the Security Council, any potentially unfavourable resolution can be simply vetoed away, rendering membership incredibly low-cost from a diplomatic point of view. Even for a small nation, membership grants a valuable platform for negotiation and arbitration. However, this begs the question, how consequential are the benefits?

The effectiveness of the aforementioned sanctions is a question of great controversy. One study indicated that only 4% of sanctions brought about any significant change. Further, the UN is no stranger to failure in its other important capacities as a supranational organisation. Iran, a State that many did not trust with nuclear weapons, had a resolution passed against them that supposedly prevented them from nuclear development. Despite this, they managed to managed to develop ballistic missiles which are “inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons,” according to a report by the United States, Britain and Germany. Even more damning is the UN’s record of “keeping the peace”, ostensibly the mission of the UN Peacekeepers. The UN has failed to prevent an incredible number of genocides since the 50s, and have ranked as one of the least effective military forces in the world.


John Haslam of the University of Cambridge once described Realism as a “spectrum of ideas”. The primary differentiating factor between the various schools of thought under the broad term ‘Realism’ is what ought follow from the underlying principle of inevitable conflict?

The Hobbesian Realist, believing in the  that it is human nature to be self-interested and this self-interest shall surely lead to death and despair if not properly restricted by a State, and a manifestation of this state of nature between States. This begs the question of whether politicians act in their own interest or the interest of the State, and to what extent these interests align. To further delve into Hobbesian theory, how does this compare to a Monarchic system? Would a ruler truly born to rule

It would be prudent to now investigate the Realist claim that States are rational actors. There are a variety of examples one could point to that might invoke doubt into the minds of staunch Realists. How does one reconcile the classical Realist view of human nature with Christian humanitarian work? What can one say in response to the well-documented history of dictators working directly against their own interests? In fact, these statements are no more incompatible with the Realist worldview than the existence of charity is with economic theory. We, as an underlying principle, assume that actors are rational and self-interested. Any deviation from this may be observed and analysed, but without the underlying principle we are left with a formless, arbitrary set of actions with no point from which to start.

Many critics of Realism hold that international cooperation ought to be the goal of any statesman, ultimately striving towards the supposed ‘common good’. The grand struggle of life is not an easy one, and it is not measured by the amount of “happiness” one acquires over their life. No, it is plainly evident from the actions of honourable men and women  that life is greater than that. Indeed, life would plainly be an endeavour in futility if this were not the case. And is the nation-state not a manifestation of this great struggle? The struggle of many against a common foe, for a common good; this is the truly the proper object of life.