The Realist Theory in the Interpretation of Security Studies

The realist theory has significantly dominated the field of theorizing in international relations, especially after the Cold War. It has provided a narrow definition of security studies by focusing on military security issues and the centrality of state security as the primary reference in security analysis. National security is viewed as the ideal conception of security, which will be explained in more detail below.

First: Traditional Realist Theory and Its Understanding of Security

1. Historical Reference of Traditional Realist Theory:
Traditional realist theory has long been the dominant framework in international relations. It gained prominence, especially during the interwar period, following the decline of idealist thought. The contributions of this theory trace back to ancient times, with figures such as the Greek historian Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, among others.

Despite its historical roots, the rise of realist thought as a doctrine in international relations coincided with two major transformations:

• The collapse of idealist assumptions during the interwar period, which relied on international behavioral standards and developed in parallel with the growth of international law and organization. In contrast, realism draws its raw material from history to make generalizations about international behavior.
• The ascent of the United States to global leadership, which strengthened the analysis of international affairs through a realist lens.

2. Key Thinkers of Traditional Realist Theory and Their Views on Security:
The concept of security in realist thought dates back to ancient times, particularly in India and Greece. Realist thought is influenced by Kautilya’s ideas, which revolve around strategies to strengthen the state both externally and internally, whether by expanding territory or forming alliances with others.

Thucydides, who lived through the Peloponnesian Wars between Sparta and Athens, famously stated: “Justice depends on the strength of the parties involved. In reality, the strong do what they can, while the weak accept what they must.” His ideas form the foundation of realist thinking about power and security.

Thomas Hobbes’ ideas are another cornerstone of realist thought. Hobbes argued that war arises from humanity’s innate tendency toward conflict rather than cooperation. Thus, war is the natural state of human relations, characterized by a “war of all against all” as humans struggle to survive in a world of limited resources.

Realist thought further developed through thinkers like Machiavelli, whose work The Prince advised rulers to prioritize state security and survival above all else.

3. Core Tenets of Traditional Realist Theory on Security:
Realists reject the notion of harmony of interests among nations, believing that states frequently have conflicting interests that may lead to war. Realist analysis assumes a conflict-driven interpretation of relations between states, which inevitably clash as they seek power, survival, and the maintenance of status. Thus, states focus on military power to neutralize threats and achieve security, often associating security with military strength and warfare.

According to Walter Lippmann, a state is secure if it does not sacrifice its values to avoid war. For realists, security is synonymous with military power and often equated with war. While realists agree that security is the ultimate goal of foreign policy, they differ on its importance relative to other objectives like power and wealth.

Traditional realism remains the staunchest defender of the view that security is a core concern of the state. National security is seen as inherently tied to the state, meaning that the security of the state against external threats is paramount. This security can only be ensured by increasing national military capabilities and forming international military alliances, particularly within the nuclear framework. From a realist perspective, the survival of the nation-state as the central actor in international politics is achieved by safeguarding its borders, maintaining national sovereignty, and ensuring stability against external military threats.

Military threats are viewed by realists as the primary danger to state security, especially external threats. Therefore, according to Kenneth Waltz, security studies should focus on studying threats, using military power, and monitoring military forces. The most reliable solution to ensuring security, from this perspective, lies within traditional military means. Thus, the concept of security can traditionally be defined as “the protection of national and state interests from external threats through the use of military force as the final means to eliminate external threats.”

Traditional realist theory assumes that security is a competitive condition among states. In an anarchic international system, states must always be prepared to face possible or potential threats, and this preparedness can only be achieved through military power.

Power is a central concept in realist studies, viewed either as a means or an end. Hans Morgenthau, a key realist thinker, believed that international politics is a continuous struggle for power. Regardless of the ultimate goals of foreign policy, power remains the immediate objective. Morgenthau viewed power from three important angles:

• Power as a cause, meaning it is the primary motivation behind any given behavior.
• Power as a goal, meaning it is the result of states’ actions.
• Power as a means and a tool for achieving desired objectives.

The concept of power is the primary variable for understanding and interpreting international behaviors, as demonstrated by the contributions of thinkers like Nicholas Spykman and Frederick Schuman. They highlighted the intrinsic link between security and power, considering the real world as a continuous arena of conflict, where no supreme authority compels states to follow any specific conduct. Edward Carr confirmed this in his book The Twenty Years’ Crisis, arguing that the state and power are inseparable in discussions of sovereignty and survival.

The realist security model can be summarized in the “realist security triangle,” which includes:

• The state: the main actor in any interactive process in international relations, serving both as a driver and an end.
• Survival: the ultimate goal of the state, prioritizing this above all other objectives due to external material threats.
• Self-reliance: the best tool for achieving this goal, especially given the complex nature of international politics.

Barry Buzan summarizes the intellectual foundations of the realist school on security by stating: “This concept places the state as the reference object, uses military force as a central concern, and views external threats as a primary issue. Security policy is about facing dangers and adopting urgent measures against them, analyzed through a positivist and rational epistemology.”

Second: Neorealist Theory and Its Understanding of Security

1. Historical Reference of Neorealist Theory:
By the 1960s and 1970s, transnational phenomena such as “interdependence” and the growing influence of non-state actors emerged, challenging traditional realist analysis. This led to the rise of neorealism, which sought to renew and expand realist theory’s capacity to analyze new international phenomena.

2. Key Tenets of Neorealist Theory on Security:
Neorealists acknowledge the possibility of cooperation between states to achieve security goals and relative gains through cooperative policies rather than competitive ones. In a less chaotic international system, cooperation mechanisms can govern interstate competition, mitigating distrust and miscalculations. Thus, mature anarchy replaces the pure anarchy proposed by classical realists, as most states realize that their security is interlinked with that of others.

From a neorealist perspective, the organizing principle of the international system is “anarchy,” in contrast to the hierarchical structure that characterizes domestic systems. Anarchy, according to realists, is defined by the absence of a global authority, a condition that not only allows wars to occur but also makes it extremely difficult for states to achieve their goals. Without higher institutions or bodies to impose international laws, states are left to fend for themselves.

Kenneth Waltz argues that international systems consist of both structure and interacting units. Political structures are composed of three elements: the organizing principle (anarchy or hierarchy), the functional similarity or dissimilarity of units, and the distribution of capabilities. Two elements of international structure remain constant: the absence of an overriding authority (anarchy) and the principle of self-help, meaning that all units are functionally similar. The only variable, according to Waltz, is the distribution of capabilities, which creates the primary distinction between multipolar and bipolar systems.

John Herz was the first to introduce the term “security dilemma” in 1950, explaining that sovereign states arm themselves to enhance their security and protection. However, the international anarchy leads to a paradox where increased security for one state results in insecurity for others. This mutual distrust and fear among states form the basis of the security dilemma, which Robert Jervis defines as the situation where “the many means by which a state seeks to increase its security decreases the security of others.”

Neorealism is divided into two main branches:

Defensive Realism: Defensive realists argue that states primarily seek security rather than power. They believe that amassing too much power can harm a state’s security in certain situations. Defensive realists view states as typically interested in maintaining the status quo and achieving security through diplomacy and alliances, especially with great powers. They prefer cooperative strategies that reduce misperceptions and miscalculations over arms races and power competition. However, this does not eliminate conflict completely, as trust issues persist, particularly between great powers and weaker states.

Defensive realism advocates for cooperative security strategies to reduce errors in decision-making processes rather than escalating arms races and the pursuit of greater power. This approach is embodied in the concept of “collective security.”

Offensive Realism:

Represented by John Mearsheimer, offensive realism argues that states focus on achieving relative power rather than absolute power to ensure their security and guarantee their national survival. This implies that decision-makers in governments must adopt security policies that identify their adversaries and enhance their relative power, based on the assumption that international relations resemble a “prisoner’s dilemma,” as game theory advocates would describe it. It is also referred to as “aggressive realism,” where states aim to maximize their security due to the absence of an overarching authority responsible for enforcing order. According to offensive realists, states are rational actors that only engage in conflicts when they feel threatened. However, they often adopt aggressive policies due to the structural demands of the international system, seeking to become stronger than other states. This anarchic system pushes states to increase their relative power, given the ever-present possibility of a sudden emergence of a force that could challenge the existing order. Offensive realism maintains that anarchy, defined as the absence of a supreme government or authority, provides strong incentives for expansion, as all states strive to enhance their power compared to others. Only the most powerful states can guarantee their survival, and they pursue expansionist policies to achieve this.

Advocates of structural analysis in security studies base their arguments on two crucial issues that make security cooperation between the units of the international system difficult:

1. The Problem of Deception, Fear, and Distrust: Fear and distrust are central components of the security dilemma. Although neorealists like Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer acknowledge the possibility of cooperation under anarchy, they argue that achieving and maintaining cooperation is far more difficult between states because they will always fear that others might break the agreements they make. Defensive realists like Stephen Walt believe that cautious and prudent strategies are the best guarantees for security. In their view, states seek security rather than power, and thus they must establish agreements and diplomatic relations, especially with major powers, to achieve their security. Over time, the balance of power is gradually replaced by a balance of deterrence, which helps reduce the security dilemma.
2. The Issue of Security Gains: Neorealists argue that states tend to focus on relative gains rather than absolute gains. What matters to states is not only the benefits they obtain from various outcomes but also how much benefit they derive compared to their competitors.

References

1. The Oxford Research Encyclopedia entry on “Realism and Security” by Stephen M. Walt provides a comprehensive overview of how realism approaches security issues in international relations.
2. The article “The strategic and realist perspectives: An ambiguous relationship” in the Journal of Strategic Studies challenges the assumption that classical strategic theory and realism share the same ontological foundations.
3. The Wikipedia page on “Realism (international relations)” offers a general overview of realist theory and its approach to world politics and security.
4. The book chapter “Realism and Security” by Stephen M. Walt in The Oxford Handbook of International Security is cited as an important resource for understanding realist perspectives on international security.
5. The article “Realism: The Domination of Security Studies” on E-International Relations examines how realism has dominated security studies and critiques of this dominance.
6. The book “Security: A New Framework for Analysis” by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde is referenced as an important text that incorporates realist elements in security studies.
7. Works by classical realist thinkers like Hans Morgenthau (“Politics Among Nations”) and Kenneth Waltz (“Theory of International Politics”) are foundational texts for understanding realist approaches to security.
8. The article “Contribution of Copenhagen school to the security studies” in the journal ODÜSOBİAD offers insights into how realist concepts have been incorporated and challenged in security studies.