Conclusion

The book has argued that despite its ongoing usage in modern political
discourse, especially in the practice of diplomacy, ‘the national interest’
is now a term largely, though not totally, devoid of substantive meaning
and content.
Although ‘the national interest’ has normally been considered in the
disciplines of diplomatic history and political science as both a defence
of and explanation for policy-making and decisions, the term has not
been comprehensively assessed across the range of major theories within
the discipline which is specifically charged with the explication of
international politics – International Relations. This book attempts to
fill this gap by providing a theoretical appraisal of the concept.
International Relations as a formal discrete discipline has only existed
since the end of World War One. However, since then a rich theoretical
literature has developed which examines and seeks to explain key issues,
actors and problems in international politics from a range of theoretical
perspectives. The methodology of this book has been to examine what
the most prominent theoretical traditions in the field – realism, Marxism
and anarchism, liberalism, the English School and constructivism –
understand by the term ‘the national interest’. In each case this involves
an historical analysis, however the common focus is whether from
the perspective of each theory, the national interest has contemporary
meaning and force.
Before this could be done, however, the origins and antecedents of
the term needed to be explained. It was shown how the national interest
evolved out of Rousseau’s notion of ‘the general will’, Machiavelli’s idea
of ‘raison d’état’, and how the rise of nationalism and the democratisation
of the state gave it modern form. The marriage of the nation as a social
group with the state as a political community forged the national interest

206
S. Burchill, The National Interest in International Relations Theory
© Scott Burchill 2005
 Conclusion 207

as the ultimate rationalisation for diplomacy – especially, though not

exclusively, in liberal democracies. In other words, in its subjective form
it became an important feature of diplomatic discourse.
The contemporary world, however, presents many different conditions
to those which prevailed when the Treaty of Westphalia was signed in
the seventeenth century. In the twenty-first century, the human race is
becoming increasingly unified in two unprecedented ways. It has a
universal economic system – capitalism – and a common form of political
community – the state in a system of states. It is against the backdrop of
these important modern processes that each theory is considered for how
it understands the idea of ‘the national interest’.
The influential tradition of realism, comprising both classical and neo-
realism, has been the principal progenitor and promoter of the term.
Early realists such as Hans Morgenthau regarded the national interest as
both a guiding maxim for statesmen and the ultimate measure of foreign
policy legitimacy. For neo-realists such as Kenneth Waltz, the national
interest is a systemic given, the pursuit of state survival in an anarchical
world.
According to the realist tradition, diplomacy must only aim at
furthering the interests of a particular state, whose citizens are assumed
to have common interests. There is no similar duty to promote the
interests of people in other states or to advance internationalist ideals.
The realist horizon does not stretch far beyond the territorial concerns
of the state, and certainly falls well short of universal concerns. Going it
alone seems safer and more defensible than a reliance on co-operation.
Realism assumes that the state can act autonomously from dominant
sectional interests. The population’s common interest in security and
state survival is said to be evidence of this claim. While this is a strong
argument, it is not impervious to criticism. Persecuted minorities and
secessionist groups do not necessarily share an interest in the ongoing
territorial integrity of the state, in fact they are often the primary victims
of attempts to prevent state fragmentation. The military-industrial sector
within each society has a disproportionate rather than a common interest
in defence and security policy. And pursuing common national interests
may occlude or discourage individuals from embracing new forms of
political community such as regional groupings, which might better
meet their needs, including their security concerns.
Although the state continues to play an important role in an era of
economic globalisation and in the latest confrontation between the secular
West and its religious enemies, the traditional realist definition of national
interests does not retain either the same resonance or relevance that it