Realism was until recently considered the dominant paradigm in international relations.

To what extent do you believe that the realist paradigm is useful for the study of

international relations?

Realism is a school of thought that forwards the competition for power amongst states as the

central feature for international relations. Realism suggests that the international system is

anarchic in nature – that is, there exists no global authority to enforce rules upon states.

Under this system of anarchy, realism argues that security thus becomes the primary

objective of states, and that this security is found in power. This paper argues that while

realism provides a strong foundation to observe international relations, it is becoming less

useful as a paradigm given the changing nature of the world. Today, economic trade and the

rise of non-state actors challenge the realist assumptions that security is the chief desire of

states and that states are the primary actors in international relations. Ultimately, this paper

concludes that while realism is still a useful perspective from which to view the world and

global relations, it is by far the only legitimate view.

Realism’s importance in international relations cannot be understated. Historically, realism

formed one of the key schools of thoughts within international relations theory, and expressed

much of the realpolitik of early Europe. The fundamental assumptions of realism – the notion

of anarchy; the recognition of states as the primary actors in international relations; and the

struggle for power amongst states – are all still relevant principles today. For instance, take

the realist belief of anarchy: that there are no legitimate global authorities to rule over states.

Despite the creation of international bodies such as the United Nations to govern international

affairs, the binding power of these bodies is often called into question. States under United

Nations sanctions do, and will continue to, break these sanctions over time. This can be seen
in North Korea’s continual nuclear testing, which they have been sanctioned by the United

Nations from doing. This suggests that the realist notion of anarchy still holds in modern

times. Similarly, look to the realist argument that states are the primary actors of international

relations. Indeed, states such as the United States, China, and Russia are all regarded as main

actors within the international system. Again, this supports the continuing relevance of

realism to international relations.

However, despite its importance, realism is arguably too simplistic and fails to account for

other incentives that states act upon. While power and security are indeed important interests

of states, states have and do act upon economic and trade interests. This is a fact that realism

fails to recognise. For example, take the increasing integrated nature of global markets today.

Now, states often have economic and trade agreements with other states, that weigh upon

their foreign policy choices. The majority of European states for instance, could not act

militarily upon their desire for security, without first considering their economic ties to the

European Union. Another example is the observation of “democratic peace theory” in the

empirical world – that is, that democracies do not go to war with each other. This theory

suggests that one of the reasons why democracies do not contest for power amongst

themselves is due to their economic ties and relations, which provide incentives for

maintaining peace. In short, while states have security interests, they also have economic

interests when deciding upon their foreign policy. This is a fact that the realist school fails to

recognise, and thus, is a weakness of its theory.

Furthermore, the rise of non-state actors is a phenomenon that the realist school of thought

does not adequately consider. Realism suggests that the primary actors within international

relations are states, but increasingly, non-state actors such as terrorist groups and drug cartels
have had strong impacts on international relations. Take the September 11 attacks. Although

orchestrated by a terrorist, and thus, non-state group, the attacks had a large impact on United

States foreign policy – even provoking the United States to an invasion of Iraq. Similarly,

drug cartels are a non-state group, but they have provoked sweeping changes in foreign

policy in Latin America, in an attempt to halt and prevent the international drug trade.

Evidently, the impact of non-state actors on global relations is a reality that realism does not

appropriately address.

This paper has explained the continuing relevance and importance of realism, but also notes

that realist theory fails to recognise the importance of economic interests for states and the

rise of non-state actors in the global community. This paper concludes that while realism is

still a helpful foundation from which to begin an exploration into global relations, it should

not be taken as an end-all, be-all perspective.

Which issue do you believe to be the most important in international relations today?

This could be one of the issues we have discussed in class, but it does not need to be. For

whichever issue you choose, give reasons.

The rise of terrorism in the contemporary world has increasingly become a cause of great

concern for many states. Although it has no universally accepted definition, terrorism can

generally be understood as premeditated, politically motivated violence made against civilian

populations by non-state groups, inflicted to provoke a political response from governments.

This paper argues that terrorism today is the most important issue for international relations,

based on the impact of terrorism on foreign policy; the increasing severity of terrorism; and

the possibility that a terrorism group will one day obtain a weapon of mass destruction

(WMD). Ultimately, this paper concludes that on account of terrorism’s increasing threat and

relevance to the international community, it is an issue that must be recognised and

addressed.

One reason why terrorism is an important issue of international relations today is because as a

state changes its foreign policy in response to terrorism, this may inadvertently impact their

relations with other states. For example, take the September 11 attacks against the United

States. In response to the terrorist event, the Untied States adopted a foreign policy that

eventually led to the Iraq War. While defended as an action designed to protect themselves,

the war itself caused a rift to form in the bilateral relations of the United States and Europe.

Similarly, as a result of the increasing terrorist attacks around the world, the United States’

Executive Order 13769 was legislated in order to “protect” themselves from terrorist attack.

However, this foreign policy choice had the additional effect of worsening the standing of the

United States on the global stage. In short, terrorism has consequences beyond its immediate
collateral damage – it also has potential to damage the relationships between states, as states

scramble to protect themselves through foreign policy changes.

Secondly, given that terrorism is rising in both frequency and severity, it is arguably going to

become an increasing problem in international relations. Literature notes that the terrorists of

today are becoming more sophisticated than terrorists in the past: they are becoming more

knowledgeable; militarily capable; and dangerous. The dissemination of technology and

spread of weaponry has only led to terrorist groups having more power and weapons from

which to coerce governments with. For example, the Global Terrorism Index year-by-year

has noted the increasing trend in the frequency and destruction that terrorist attacks cause

annually. Furthermore, the spread of the internet and encrypted communication has given the

terrorists of today greater opportunity to organise and co-ordinate attacks – a feat that was

much more difficult in the past. At the extreme scale, the internet now allows terrorists to

influence and coerce people oceans away, and brainwash them into becoming domestic

terrorists themselves. This is a threat that is arguably only going to increase in the future, and

thus supports the view that terrorism is a important global issue that must be recognised.

Finally, as a corollary point to the above, there is a very real possibility that a terrorist group

is eventually going to gain access to a WMD, and use this weapon as a bargaining tool to

coerce states. Although WMD’s are dangerous in any state’s hands, the threat of a WMD in a

terrorist groups hands is arguably greater. Terrorist groups are not subject to the same

limitations and constraints as states are. For one, unlike regular states, terrorist groups are

fragmented and are often hidden amongst larger populations – thus, they do not fear a state’s

retaliation and second-strike capability in response to a nuclear attack. Furthermore, unlike

regular states, terrorist groups cannot be deterred by economic sanction – thus, they often
have no trade incentives to prevent them from using a WMD on another state. And while it

may be said that the threat of a terrorist group attained a WMD is exaggerated and fanciful, it

is not entirely impossible, given the proliferation of weapons today. Such an event happening

would have enormous consequence for the rest of the international community, and thus,

terrorism is an issue that arguably should be addressed.

This paper has demonstrated the consequences of terrorism upon the international community

and has examined the implications of terrorism’s increasing severity and its impacts on

foreign policy. This paper ultimately concludes that on account of terrorism’s growing threat

and the consequences that the world would suffer if remains uncurbed, terrorism is

definitively the most important issue for international relations today.