which is why the powers, especially the great powers, are the key elements and reference points of this system, of this international "order". Further, it is the pursuit of this interest - which may undergo mutations over time - that will, in most cases, guide the international policy of nations, which in turn will foster a certain component of predictability, so much so that it has been said 4 that realism is unpopular because it tends to be right in its predictions.Īnd if, from the realist perspective, the behaviour of many nations is to a certain degree predictable, and to this we add that so-called "neorealism" 5 indicates that of the three levels of analysis to be considered (individuals, states and the international system) the preponderant one is precisely the last, we have a system made up of a series of parts - states - that interact with each other driven by interest, generating a component that is anarchic because, despite the established attempts at global governance such as the UN, there is no kind of world "government" or "police" to put an end to this chaos.Įach part of this international system will have a greater or lesser influence on it according to its capabilities, its power. And while there are nuances and certain differences among the realist schools, they all in essence drawn from the same principles, which in a very schematic way 3 can be stated as follows: the essential element in international relations is the concept of interest understood in terms of power, and the essential pieces of these relations are the states. On a planet that is being reshaped, interest is the essential driver of the changes under way - particularly if "universal values" are permanently challenged in increasingly "liquid" societies 2- and realism gains ground to explain these dynamics. However, on the reverse side of this wide spectrum, an approach that stems from the conception of human beings as imperfect points out that societies and international relations replicate and amplify these imperfections and that, as a result, interest - and not values - is the essential driver of individuals, societies and, therefore, international relations.īetween these two extreme positions there is obviously room for many intermediate ones, but condensed and presented in a very general and simplified way, these lines of thought can, both roughly speaking and with all the nuances one may wish to make, be identified as idealist and realist. It is therefore possible to find both individual and collective approaches to life, centred on abstract principles, which in some cases are universally accepted, and we can consider that on that basis it is feasible to find just societies and international relations based on fairness and reason. Whatever the case and whether the outcome is any of the above or not, the fact remains that the powers are once again reshaping the world "order".ĭepending on one's way of being and approach to life, there are a wide range of options as to the desirable model of society and the paradigm to be followed in international relations, options that can be framed between idealism and realism. Given the forces and interests at play, we may - and let us hope this is not the case - be in the first stage of a future third world war or, given the blocs that are emerging, perhaps the outcome will be a new cold war. Statements about the future of the conflict and its medium-term effects are diverse in content and the forecasts are mostly, and despite the arguments that underpin them, more conjecture than reality, especially considering that the magnitude of the conflict and its active and dynamic nature make its consequence entirely unpredictable. The Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that not only is conventional warfare still a fact of life - despite all the advocates of the end of "classic" conflicts and "kinetic" weapons systems (tanks, guns, planes, etc.) - but that at least the powerful players in world affairs did not renounce their own interests despite the globalist and globalised world, and they are still prepared to use all the means at their disposal, including military means, when necessary. A conflict of a magnitude and intensity not seen in Europe since the Second World War, not only in terms of the number of casualties and the destruction caused 1 but also the number of nations directly and indirectly involved in it, has been raging in the east of the continent for more than a year now.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |