Realistic Realism? American Political Realism, Clausewitz and Raymond Aron on the Problem of Means and Ends in International Politics

Abstract

This article focuses on the relationship between means and ends in international politics, which is one of the core issues that has been reflected upon in international relations. Political realism, usually regarded as the dominant paradigm in international relations, provides a very specific understanding of this relationship: power and survival are considered as the unique, given and fixed ends of political action on the international scene. Consequently, a theory of international relations only concentrates on how states can make the most efficient use of the varied means the states dispose of in order to achieve these ends. However, this article argues that this dominant conception of international politics is surprisingly narrow. By focusing on other prominent thinkers traditionally labelled as 'realists', like Clausewitz and Aron, the article stresses the complexity of the relationship of means and ends and the place of power within a realist theory of international relations.Political realism has traditionally been regarded as the dominant paradigm of international relations. Not surprisingly, most criticisms voiced in the field are directed against this school of thought. One of the most justified of these stresses the uncertainty of the status of its central concept -power -within realist theories, and the neglect of values. For the most prominent realists, Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, power and survival are the core ideas used in their account of international relations. Even though differences are to be found between the two scholars, both agree on the role played by power and survival in their theory: these two concepts are presented as the rational goal of international politics. Survival being the end, the struggle for power is the essence of state relations. A theory of international relations therefore aims at stressing the most effective use that can be made, by states, of means or capabilities at their disposal in order to achieve this end.This article argues that realism is too often only conceived as an AngloAmerican school of thought. Morgenthau and Waltz are certainly the most quoted scholars in the tradition, but this obscures the fact that realism, defined as a specific approach to international relations, also includes other, nonAmerican thinkers, who, while being part of that school, nevertheless have a

Reel Politiği Sınırlandıran Kamuoyu: Nükleer İran Örneği

“…7 Devletlerarası ilişkiler/ çatışmalar sürecinde devlet eylemlerinin uluslararası politikaya uygulanabilirliği bakımından en yüksek öngörü potansiyeline sahip olan reelpolitik, güç ve hayatta kalma amacına yönelik politika üretme kuramı olarak tanımlanabilir. 8 Almancadan türetilmiş olan bu terim teorik veya etik amaçlardan ziyade pratik ve maddi faktörlere dayalı bir siyaset anlamına da gelmektedir. 9 Reelpolitik, özellikle 21. yüzyılın uluslararası politik zorluklarıyla alakalı olarak son 160 yılda tanınamayacak kadar istismar edilmiş bir kavramdır.…”

Introduction

“…Sa réticence face aux approches qu'il juge trop scolastiques, formelles et éloignées de la réalité empirique ainsi que sa volonté d'articuler, à la manière de Weber, l'étude des valeurs et de la politique de puissance le différencient fortement des réalistes anglo-américains, qui établissent une barrière entre la politique et les considérations morales. Jusqu'à un certain point, le but d'Aron est de mettre en évidence les raccourcis et les faiblesses du réalisme modélisateur plébiscité outre-Atlantique, cela, afi n de proposer une vision plus complexe, historicisée et philosophiquement robuste, de la réalité internationale (Cozette 2004(Cozette et 2008. Pierre Hassner va jusqu'à dire que la dé-marche d'Aron relève moins de la théorie des relations internationales que de la philosophie (Hassner 2008).…”

Open Horizons: The Temporal Visions of Reflexive Realism

“…In recent years, a host of works have appeared which attest, in varying ways, to the sensibilities of reflexive realism. Some of the classical realists who have been harnessed for a more contemporary context include Hans Morgenthau (Williams 2007a; Cozette 2008a; Cozette 2008b; Guilhot 2008; Tjalve 2008; Bell 2008), Reinhold Niebuhr (Guilhot 2008; Tjalve 2008), John Herz (Stirk 2005), and Raymond Aron (Cozette 2004). Whether using the moniker “reflexive” or not, the scenery of this movement seems broadly coherent.…”

“…20 20 This understanding of agency rebuts a traditional charge against classical realism as incoherent or indefensible on the relationship between ends and means (Cozette 2004), because in a processual framework, “one cannot justify immoral means through virtuous ends because acting in the public sphere is a continuous project” that “can never sacrifice persons or ideals in pursuit of longer‐term trends” (Lang 2007:34). …”

“…Much like an exogenous moral foundation and redemption, in Augustinian realism, final judgment is explicitly reserved for God alone, and is unknowable by humanity(Murray 1997:50).Lebow (2003:365) also notes that the Greeks equated ''comparing oneself to the gods'' as the worst form of hubris.20 This understanding of agency rebuts a traditional charge against classical realism as incoherent or indefensible on the relationship between ends and means(Cozette 2004), because in a processual framework, ''one cannot justify immoral means through virtuous ends because acting in the public sphere is a continuous project'' that ''can never sacrifice persons or ideals in pursuit of longer-term trends''(Lang 2007:34).…”