Does Realism still provide a convincing analysis of international relationships ?
- The primary foundation stone in all Realist thought is that human nature is essentially bad
- When Realism tries to isolate the realm of politics from those of law or morals - it is an artificial and forced separation // The Realist denial of any genuine international co-operation is belied when one examines the growth of mutual accords between states and humanitarian interventions
- Practicing Realism today would be dangerously regressive
Realism arose as a theory after World War II because of the perceived failure of a world guided by Liberal Internationalist principles. The tension fraught era of the Cold War were ideal conditions for the stark, suspicious pragmaticism espoused by the likes of E.H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau. However, in today's increasing interdependent world where the use of force has been virtually outlawed and human rights have been brought more to the forefront than ever before, Realism looks past its expiry date. Its narrow-minded, state centric focus is striking for its inability to take into account the fact that ultimately, the people who make up the state are human beings, and like all human beings possess the faculty to dream.