The Balancing Proposition to Realist Theory

Questions to answers:

• How important is the balancing proposition to realist theory?

• How important is the international institution's proposition to realist theory?

• What do you think are realism’s greatest three weaknesses?

• Can those weaknesses be corrected?

1. How important is the balancing proposition to realist theory?

The balancing proposition is of utmost importance for realists as it is where they rely
to reach stability in the international arena. States' survival depends on having more
power than the others state, thus all powers are viewed in relative terms. A classic
example of this is what Thucydides realized in the Peloponnesian war, the underlying
cause of war between Athens and Sparta is the changing distribution of powers.
Hence, when a state says that China is rising in power, the rest of Asian countries can
balance China through establishing alliances to improve their relative positions which
is the pursuit of expansionist policies. However, the balance of power has also some
weaknesses, such as states may be tempted to cheat on agreements to gain a
relative advantage over other states. For instance, in a military alliance, all states may
agree to not possess nuclear weapons but some states will opt to secretly develop a
nuclear break-out capability. And also, self-interest provides a powerful incentive for a
state to take advantage of every opportunity when dealing with other states. Its
rational desire to protect its interest tends to prevent cooperation among states.

2. How important is the international institution's proposition to realist theory?

Realist has little trust to no trust in international institutions which is rooted in their
belief that the state is a unitary actor which is only concerned about its national
interest. But by applying the balance of power, we can avoid insecurities among
states to prevent them from engaging in war with one another. In the face of
cooperation with other states through international organizations, the possibility of
cooperating for mutual gain is confronted with the question coming from an insecure
state, the question of how the gain will be divided. As one state may use its
disproportionate gain to implement a policy intended to damage the other. Having the
prospect of large absolute gains for both parties does not bring cooperation, as each
party will fear how others will use its increased capabilities.

3. What do you think are realism’s greatest three weaknesses?

The following could be the possible loopholes of the realist perspective. Firstly, the
realist is concerned about the relative gains because states will always act to
maximize their power relative to other states to improve chances of survival. Secondly,
relative power means states hesitate to engage in cooperation if the benefits will
distribute unevenly among participating states. Thirdly, even if cooperation could
produce absolute gains to any state, those gains would be undermined by the other
state if cooperation would be seen as producing greater advantage to other states.

4. Can those weaknesses be corrected?

For me, those weaknesses could be hardly corrected if realist continues to see the
international system as only operating in an anarchic situation. As the state continues
to think, that they alone are responsible to themselves and cannot expect someone or
another state to utilize its resources to help another state in times of need, say for
instance during the war without expecting more gain in return. And as long as their
national interest dictates only the promotion of their national economy and increasing
military capability, states would continue to be cautious and insecure with the other
state that they interacted with within the international arena. But maybe, those
attitudes can be corrected if states no longer feel the pressing internal problems and
external issues of globalization and security threats. However, in the present
international context, that kind of system is still near too impossible.