The University of Nairobi

Department of Political Science and Public Administration

Alvin AKOKO O.
C50/67836/2013

CIR 601
Theories of International Relations

Q1. Compare and Contrast classical and Structural Realism.

Q2. Idealism is an approach while Liberalism is a theory of
International Relations. Discuss.

Instructor: Dr. Adams OLOO

Submission date: 23rd, November 2013

Q1. Compare and Contrast classical and Structural Realism
[Alvin AKOKO]

Introduction
Realism is the View that world politics is driven by competitive interests. Realists therefore
belive that the decisive dynamics among countries is a struggle for power in an effort by each to
preserve or, preferably improve its military security and economic welfare in competition with
other actors. They see the struggle of power as a zero sum game, one in which one country gains
and the other party loses completely. As Realist theory evolved, it split into 2 schools of thought
baed on primary different views of the root of conflict
There is no single tradition of political realism, but rather a knowledge of historically constituted
tensions, contradictions and evasions. Sorensen in his book Introduction to International
Relations describe advocates of realism as having a pessimistic view of human nature and
believing that human beings are preoccupied with their own well-being in their competitive
relations with each other. Realism in essence depicts international affairs as a struggle for power
among self-interested states and is similarly generally pessimistic about the prospects for
eliminating conflict and war.
Realists often trace their intellectual roots to Thucydides classic account of the Peloponnesian
War in the fifth-century B.C. It would however take nearly 2,500 years before the study of
international politics became an institutionalized academic discipline and for the first classical
realists in the newly established field to emerge. Hans Morgenthau, came to have the largest
impact on the field. In his magnum opus from 1948, Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau
formulated an account of political realism that dominated the studies of international politics for
over two generations. Eventually, the intellectual hegemony of Morgenthaus classical realism
was succeeded by the founding father of neorealism, Kenneth Waltz. Waltzs attempt to develop
a systemic and scientific realism in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics divided this
school of thought into two blocks: classical realism and neorealism
As representatives of classical realism and neorealism on basis of their reputation as the most
influential thinkers in their respective branch of realism, I will compare compare and contrast
these two realist traditions by engaging with the works of Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz.
The aim is to challenge the conventional wisdom within the field of IR and present a more
sophisticated and nuanced understanding of these two theorists.
I will analyse the theoretical and key differences and similarities between Classical and NeoRealism under the following sub-divisions.
1. Human nature and structure
2. Power and Conflict
3. Role of Morality
4. Scientific methodology
[Alvin AKOKO]

Human Nature and Structure

Classical realism can trace its origins back to the Greek philosopher Thucydides. While it has a
number of leading proponents, Sorensen identify three areas of agreement between them which
can be used to sum up the essential elements of classical realism. Example
i. There is no escape from the human condition and it is a permanent feature of human life
ii. The human condition is a condition of insecurity and conflict which must be dealt with
iii. There is a body of political knowledge or wisdom to deal with the problem of security and
each tries to identify the keys to it
It developed largely in response to the failure of liberal internationalism, the dominant ideology
of the earlier part of the century to adequately account for the developments in international
relations which led to the outbreak of World War II. Among classical realisms leading
proponents were Hans Morgenthau who in turn took much inspiration from earlier scholars such
as Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbs. In his notable work Politics among Nations, Morgenthau put
forward what he considered to be the six principles of political realism. The subsequent arrival of
neorealism sparked a debate over what now constitutes the fundamental principles of realism.
Firstly among Morgenthaus principles was his belief that politics like society in general is
governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. Human nature, in
Morgenthaus view has remained essentially the same since it was first examined by classical
philosophers from Greece and further afield, and it remains to this day self-centred and selfinterested. With respect to morality and justice, Morgenthau reasons that it is unconsciable for a
state to follow policy based on such ideologies. He argued that while the individual to sacrifice
himself, the state has no right to let moral get away in the place of success. In contrast to this,
neo-realists would dismiss the role of human nature, focusing instead on a top-down approach
where the structure of the international system plays the leading role in the relationship between
states rather than the nature of the individual.
Neorealists such as Kenneth Waltz would categorise classical theories as reductionist that is,
focusing on the individual parts of the system i.e. human beings rather than the system which
they collectively constitute and maintain. For Waltz, the focus is on the structure of the
international system as opposed to human nature. He defines structures as being non-hierarchic
with political actors carrying out essentially the same functions as one another in order to
survive. Waltz believes also that the behaviour of states in the international system is not derived
so much from human nature as it is the result of those states finding themselves in an anarchic
system in which they must take whatever actions are necessary in order to survive. Central also
to structural realism is the distribution of capabilities among states and it is these capabilities
which define a states position within the international system
[Alvin AKOKO]

Great scholars associated with classical realism such as Thucydides also acknowledged some
kind of structure in the international system such as the laws governing human behaviour, but
unlike neorealists human nature was a central aspect of this structure.
While neorealists do acknowledge the potential impact of transnational forces and nongovernmental organisations on the international system they see such an impact as occurring
purely within the context of the state-dominated world environment. Kenneth Waltz also points
out that while such non-state actors may exist and play a role in the system, states nevertheless
reserve the right and the power to set the terms of intercourse and has he puts it when the
crunch comes, states remake the rules by which other actors operate.
Morgenthaus second principle views interest defined in terms of power whereas neo-realists
would see power as being merely a means to an end. The third principle stresses the importance
of a deep understanding of the human condition in order for a state to be able to conduct its
affairs effectively on the world stage, but Richard Ashley points out that human behaviour can
only be interpreted as surface practice generated in turn by a deeper independently existing
structure.1 Morgenthaus fourth principle states that universal moral principles cannot be
applied to relations between states as leaders must sometimes take actions considered morally
wrong in order to best serve the interests of those to whom they are accountable ; the people,
electorate. Machiavelli, in his work The Prince goes further A rulercannot always act in ways
that are considered good because, in order to maintain his power, he is often forced to act
treacherously, ruthlessly or inhumanely. Hence, he must be prepared to vary his conduct as the
winds of fortune and changing circumstances constrain him

Power and Conflict

The concept of the balance of power can trace its origins as far back as Thucydides who
attributed it to the onset of the Peloponnesian War. For classical realists such as Morgenthau, the
balance of power was a general social phenomenon to be found on all levels of social interaction.
He also believes that the balance of power would emerge of necessity as states attempted to
assert their power on the world stage. Morgenthau regarded the balance of power during the
nineteenth century as a consequence of a strong international society led by the stronger of the
states which made it up. The fundamental reason for attempting to achieve a balance of power is
to maintain order in the international system. The fundamental role of the balance of power in
maintaining peace was also acknowledged by a number of realist-leaning practitioners of foreign
policy including George Kennan, former US ambassador to the Soviet Union who advocated the
policy of containment and also Henry Kissinger, a former secretary of state to President Richard
1

[Alvin AKOKO]

Nixon. This is however in direct contrast to the nature of the balance of power as defined in the
neo-realist philosophy put forward by Kenneth Waltz, which places strong emphasis on the role
of political structures
Classical Realists believe that Security power is the currency of international politics. Great
powers, the main actors in the realists account, pay careful attention to how much economic and
military power they have relative to each other. It is important not only to have a substantial
amount of power, but also to make sure that no other state sharply shifts the balance of power in
its favour. For realists, international politics is synonymous with power politics.
Classical Realists contend that struggles between states to secure their frequently conflicting
national interests are the main action on the world stage. They believe should base their foreign
policy on Darwinian Theory in which power is the key to the National survival for the fittest, its
an environment as dangerous as anarchy and those states who ignore realist principles will not
survive. For Classical Realists, might makes right, or atleast makes success.
Classical realists view power as an end in itself while neorealists view power as merely a means
to an end. While realists of all persuasions agree that those involved in politics aspire to achieve
power, they disagree quite strongly on why that is the case. For classical realists the answer lies
in human nature itself. Hans Morgenthau believes that humans are by nature political animals
that are born to pursue power and enjoy the fruits of that power. This object of this lust for power
is to gain relative advantage over other human beings are therefore increase ones own security
in the process. For classical realists, the emphasis for any state must be on relative gains only,
owing primarily to the anarchic nature of the international system.
Morgenthau and Waltz both see the international arena as a competitive and hostile stage where
power is the main currency. That is why the concept of power is at the heart of their analysis of
international politics.
Morgenthau states that: Power may comprise anything that establishes and maintains the power
of man over man . from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one
mind controls another . For Morgenthau, the most important material aspect of power is armed
forces, but even more significant is a nations character, morale and quality of governance.
Waltz offers a considerably thinner definition of power or capabilities than Morgenthau. His
estimation of power includes the following components: size of population and territory,
resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence .
Even though Waltz evidently privileges material factors, non-material dimensions of power are
also present in his theory as manifested by his emphasis on political stability and competence.
The reason for Waltzs predominant emphasis on materialism is due to his commitment to
scientific realism. Consequently, Waltz limits his definition of power to mainly tangible
variables as they are much easier to quantify.
[Alvin AKOKO]

There differences between Morgenthau and Waltz in their definition of power. The formers
understanding of power poses a fundamental anomaly to the orthodox view since soft power
trumps hard power in Morgenthaus account. In this respect, Waltzs position is far easier to
reconcile with the traditional view. Indeed, Waltzs rather narrow conception of power is
predominantly, but not entirely, materialistic
Further more on the concept as to why states struggle for power classical realists and neo-realists
answer this fundamental question in opposing ways. Classical realism supposedly emphasizes
human nature while neorealism locates causation in the anarchic international system.
Morgenthau argues that the struggle for power at the international level is largely the result of
animus dominandi, the political mans urge to dominate others, a concept influenced by
Nietzsches metaphysics on the will to power. He regards the state as a collective reflection of
political mans lust for power and the unit which carries out its impulses at the international
stage. The state is thus the referent object of Morgenthaus theory and the agent pursuing power
in international affair. On the other hand, Waltz Kenneth attempts to locate causation at the
systemic level instead. Indeed, Waltz contends that the anarchical international system inevitably
leads to the logic of self-help and power politics. According to Waltz states who struggle for
power are simply following the dictates of the international system in order to survive in an
international order where there is no global leviathan to offer them protection
Both scholars though make use of other levels of analysis as well. Without incorporating both
systemic and unit-level explanations neither Morgenthau nor Waltz would be able to explain why
states pursue power. The difference between the two lies in the fact that Morgenthaus bottomup approach takes human nature as the starting point and moves up the levels of analysis, while
Waltz top-down approach begins at the third image and slowly move down to the unit-level,
without ever reaching the individual level

The Role of Morality

For classical realists such as Morgenthau a sense of justice is an essential component for a
functional community as it is within such a community that the pursuit of individual interest
becomes possible. Those same principles of justice, enable power to be translated more easily
into influence. Morgenthaus statement that to do justice and to receive it is an elemental
aspiration of man as a measure of proof that there is at least a limited role for morality in
international politics. David Boucher in Political Theories of International Relations in reference
to the Greek philosopher Thucydides illustrates the potential dangers of ignoring the role of
justice and morality in the conduct of international relations Unmodified by morality, the
individual will maximise utility in conformity with perceived interest. The power to do so with
impunity leads to a disregard for moral constraints. The Atheniansappealed to the nature of
justification of their actions. It was however, the (belief) that they were above moral
[Alvin AKOKO]

constraints both as citizens and as a state, which had disastrous consequences both internally and
externally
Neorealism on the other hand does not offer any guidance on policy formation in the
international arena as policy is ultimately determined by the dynamics of the structure of the
system.

The Role of Science

Classical and neoclassical approaches do agree that there is a scientific aspect to both theories
but they disagree on the application methods to the broader realist theory. Richard Ashley
describes neorealism as a progressive scientific redemption of classical realist scholarship.
Classical realist would view the scientific character of their discipline as deriving from its being
grounded in necessity. To illustrate this, even its earliest proponents such as Thucydides and
Machiavelli referred to laws of behaviour and an order of things in their works. Many
scholars are highly critical of the scientific methods used by contemporary realists suggesting
that any contributions made to the study of international relations using the scientific approach
are done using what are essentially classical realist methods i.e. reliance on well-informed
judgements not supported by scientific evidence. He is particularly critical of Thomas Schelling,
another neorealist whom he suggests constructs scientific material in order to support his theories
which are similarly based essentially on his own judgement.Sorensen agree broadly with this
assessment when they suggest that while neorealists such as Waltz aim to provide a scientific
explanation of international politics, they end up resting their case on normative foundations of
a traditional realist kind
For the more scientifically minded neorealists however, classical realism simply is not well
grounded in social theory and neglects to take into account important factors such as economics
and sociology.

Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be seen that while classical and neorealism agree on some fundamental
points, i.e. the existence of a state of anarchy and the important role played by the balance of
power in the international system, they tend to disagree on the reason for the origin or continued
existence of these factors. Neorealists continue to view power as a means to an end while
classical realists will see power as an end in its own right. Classical realists will continue to view
the search for power not made for the achievement of moral values; moral values used to
facilitate the attainment of power. Neorealists however continue to maintain their opposition to
[Alvin AKOKO]

a role for morality, values or justice in realist theory and they similarly continue to advocate the
place of scientific methodology.

References

Machiavelli The Prince

Bull H. International Theory: The Case for a Classical
Mearsheimer, J. (1995) A Realist Reply. International Security
John H. Herzs Political Realism and Political Idealism
Waltz, K. (1959) Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis
Williams, M. (2007) Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International
Relations

Q2. Idealism is an approach while liberalism is a theory of international relations. Discuss.

A Theory is "paradigm". According to Ray and Kaarbo, a paradigm is simply a way of thinking
about and approaching an area of scientific or scholarly inquiry that is widely accepted within a
particular discipline. provides a simplified map of reality; it takes the complexity of the real
world and reduces it to a core set of assumptions that make global events that seem so isolated,
[Alvin AKOKO]

unrelated and complicated more comprehensible. they help us systematize and simplify a very
complicated world.
An Approach on the other hand is a starting point, like a guide , a close approximation, means
adopted to view a problem. An Approach is a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the
nature . An approach is axiomatic. It describes the nature

A theory must have the ability to explain, say why are things the way they are and not just
describe In explaining as to why events occur in the International field is important, it should
use such explanations to forecast, see the future and give probabilities on the unknown outcomes.
Thus a theory must have ability to explain and predict, this is one of the failures of Idealism,
which after the First world created institutions which would avert any international conflict in the
future. A theory should be in line with reality, it should ascribe to the rule of nature, as it is.
Idealists focuses on how the world ought to be, imaginative thinking. They conceived the
International arena not as it was but how it should be, this was their worst undoing as they
missed the chance to defend themselves when the 2nd world war happened. It is basically utopic.
Hobson describes idealism as the tactics of conservatism. He criticizes it as it seems to preach
the divine rights of things. Instead of realizing the ideal, it idealizes the actual.
Idealists rely on unknown world, a system that has no existence. It is a purely abstract and
metaphysical approach and far removed from the realities of life. The ideas preached by it have
little touch with hard facts of life.
William James calls the idealistic theory "; rationalistic philosophy that indeed may call itself
religious, but that keeps out all definite touch with concrete facts, joys and sorrows." Idealists
emphasise the power of reason to overcome prejudice and counteract the machinations of sinister
forces. They believe that the spread of education and democracy will empower world public
opinion, and make it a powerful force that no government can resist.
They view war as a disease of the international body politic, contrary to the interests of all bar a
few special interests and unrepresentative governments. On the sensitive issue of rationality
cognitive thinking and the Realists erred in their judgment, man is seen a selfish animal, with self
[Alvin AKOKO]

glory and man has no good intentions for the other until that point good intentions to his
neighbor mean good for him. They argued that with Education about war and its consequences,
man would realize its consequences and pursue other means of settlement.
Idealists have never given reason as to why 2nd World War occurred, the institutions they created
in the belief to avert another world war failed, they underestimated the role of power in
international politics and overestimated the role, actual and potential, of law, morality and public
opinion. At the expense of struggle of power in the international system, idealists thought
International Law, International institutions and morality should be given high stakes.
This would imply idealism as an approach, it did not take into consideration things as they were,
the tension that existed and the realities of the day instead focused on how things should be. A
theory would have focused their intervention on why in first place the first world war occurred,
and in realities of the moment give realistic solutions
Joad denounces idealism as unsound in theory and dangerous in its contents because it inevitably
leads to the omnipotence of state and negation of individual liberty
Idealists missed the point when they assume that state is an all-embracing institution. The idealist
conceives of the state as an isolated, self-sufficient and all-embracing institution. Such a
conception cannot be in full agreement with the dynamic movement of human society which is
characterized by the growth and development of the increasing number of voluntary associations
such as the clubs, the trade unions, the church etc. These associations touch all the aspects of an
individual's life and promote his welfare. The sphere of activity of such associations is more
extensive than that of the state and they command the allegiance of citizens belonging to
different states. The state cannot prevent by any external act the expression of loyalty to these
associations and to assert with success its claim to unstinted allegiance from its citizens.

Liberalism, in stark contrast to utopic idealism, believes that power in the international relations
exist but contend that it should be measured through state economies, the possibility of peace and
cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms, rights and the like. Francis Fukuyama,
[Alvin AKOKO]

American political scientist, political quite notably, believed that progress in human history can
be measured by the elimination of global conflict and the adoption of principles of legitimacy
and observed the extent to which liberal democracies have transcended their violent instincts
Liberalists stress on free trade and market capitalism, as well as allowing for the legitimate
selection of government through democratic action. Liberalism operates under real-world unlike
Idealist who operate in an utopic or ideal world conditions, reflecting state interest and
aggrandizement, if only that such advancement results in peace instead of the expected dose of
conflict.
Liberalism has thus proved not just to be a projection of how politics ought to be, but is now a
modern, practical theory of peace achieved in the midst of anarchic conditions and even after the
states quest for power
Reflecting Liberalism origins in the post-World War period, liberals have argued that the chief
goal of foreign policy should be to promote world peace although many accept that wars can be
just if world peace is the ultimate goal. One mechanism for doing this is to promote the growth
of international organizations and international laws, which, according to liberals, should be
generally effective provided that they reflect existing balances of power. Important liberal
projects have included the promotion of universal human rights and conflict prevention in the
United Nations, and market liberalization through the World Trade Organization. Some branches
of liberal theory insist that domestic and international reforms must be linked, and that world
peace will require democratization of currently authoritarian states.
Liberalism does not deny that serious international conflicts occur. However, following the
neoliberal turn, theorists have generally argued that states should and usually do concern
themselves first with what economists and game theorists call absolute gains rather than relative
gains - in other words, they are concerned with achieving a measurable increase in their own
power and prosperity on their own terms, rather than more narrowly with increasing their power
and prosperity relative to other states.
As a theory Liberalism has been viewed by other scholars from another lense, it is criticize for
the following;
[Alvin AKOKO]

Strengths and Weaknesses

LIberalism is the first major body of international political theory to focus explicitly on the
problem of war and peace with the goal of implementing sufficient reforms to end war and create
a democratic world peace. In its neoliberal and trade-oriented variants, liberalism offers a
powerful but still traditional body of theory that allows for the analysis of non-state actors like
corporations and social movements. The democratic peace theory, while still unexplained in
specific terms, is one of the strongest claims to truth in all of international relations theory.
At the same time, critics allege that liberalism suffers from theoretical incoherence and a
Western-centric perspective. Realists argue that liberals are naive to think that world peace is
achievable, and wrong to include corporations and international organizations as important actors
in international politics. More radical scholars argue that liberalism ignores the frequently violent
foreign policies of imperial democracies like the British Empire and, arguably, the current United
States, as well as the limitations of concepts like "human rights," which are merely Western
rather than truly universal.

Idealism is not a theory because it doesnt ascribe to any assumptions. A school of thought
cannot qualify to be a theory if it cannot be tested, if it has no theoretical assumptions.
Liberalism unlike Idealism has fundamental assumptions

Liberalism Theory Assumptions

The nature of international relations includes both conflict and co-operation. Liberals believe that
because states are connected by trade and finance, they have an incentive not to alienate one
another. This rationale is a good reason for nations to reduce tariffs and other trade barriers. A
second part of this assumption is the democratic stability theory which rests on the observation
that no two democratic states have ever gone to war with one another, and that democratic states
rarely strike first. Liberals argue that democracies identify with one another because of their
[Alvin AKOKO]

shared norms and values--the United States doesn't want to take over Canada (and vice versa)
partly because each country believes that citizens have the right to choose their own government
and consequently believe that conquering another country and enslaving its citizens is wrong.
Moreover, democracies are not dominated by the military and the decision to go to war does not
lie in the hands of an individual or a small group; leaders are accountable to their people, who
are often reluctant to see their children go to war.

The state is not necessarily a unitary and rational actor. This assumptions recognizes that leaders
must play bi-level games in which they must simultaneously negotiate with foreign leaders but
also make choices that keep their own constituents happy. An example of this is the United
States' ongoing refusal to pay UN dues. Foreign aid and contributions to the United Nations
would total less than 1% of America's budget, but a popular campaign strategy of Congressmen
is to argue that the United States sends too much of our tax dollars abroad. Congressmen
therefore would compromise their promises to their constituents by paying UN dues and hence
will not authorize the president to do so. Consequently, what might be rational (in our best
interest)--paying our dues in order to reduce the wrath of our fellow UN members--cannot come
to be
Both state and non-state actors are important in international relations. Liberalism directly
contrasts realism because it places a great deal of value on "substate actors," like individuals or
multi-national corporations. Microsoft, a company that earns as much as the GNP as the 9th
largest country in the world, can affect global politics by controlling how and what kind of
information people can access. Jesse Jackson influenced global politics when he negotiated the
release of American fighter pilot Scott O'Grady from the Bosnian government.
Beside democracy, liberalism claims that economics, social, ecological and other non-military
issues promote cooperation among states. Liberalism particularly emphasizes the pacifying
effects of free trade. As Angell suggests, war can become obsolete if trade flourishes between
countries because trade brings mutual gains to all the actors, irrespective of how powerful they
are. Moreover, free trade mitigates barriers and tensions between countries and propels
interaction, friendship and understanding
[Alvin AKOKO]

Transnational cooperation is considered as a requirement for resolving common problems. This

argument particularly corresponds to the idea that the risk of conflicts between states is reduced
by creating a common interest in trade and cooperation for the states mutual benefits. On the
other hand, this refers to the claim of Keohane and Nye that the modern international system is
marked by interdependence, creating a cobweb of diverse actors that are linked through
interaction. Therefore, the centrality of international institutions and regimes, international nongovernmental organizations and other interest groups needs to be taken into account as they
broaden the states conception of self-interest and wide the scope for cooperation .
Moreover, liberalism argues that international institutions play an important role in
implementing, monitoring and adjudicating disputes arising from decisions made by constituent
states of the organization

References
Burchill, S. (2005) Realism and Liberalism
Morgenthau, H. (1948) Politics Among Nations.
Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man.

[Alvin AKOKO]