In the increasingly uneasy world of today, when the notion of a “balance of terror” no longer seems a jaded and unlikely description of the human condition, the concerned thinker, fearful of the future, must pause to reconsider the relevance of the dominant mode of thought in international retations. This paper seeks to examine the fundamental question whether political realism, for long the dominant mode of thought in international politics, can any longer serve as a useful guide to understanding and action in world affairs. Given the dangerous direction in which the world is all too evidently heading in the 1980s, it is necessary to enquire whether the realist outlook, however useful in the past, provides any ground for optimism regarding the future. The task is all the more important because the “future” we are concerned with involves the question of the survival of life on this planet.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HoffmanStanley(Ed.):Contemporary Theory in International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1960), pp 30–38
2.
KlineMorris, Mathematics in Western Culture (London, 1954), p 323
3.
HamiltonDavid, Evolutionary Economics: A Study of Change in Economic Thought (Alberquerque, New Mexico, 1970), pp 21–22
4.
A representative example of serious writing in this respect is LorenzKonrad, On Aggression (London, 1966). Of lower intellectual calibre, though more widely read, is Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative (London, 1969)
5.
MontaguAshley, The Nature of Human Aggression (New York, 1976)
6.
AlfordColonel J., “The Technological Trap,”International Relations, (London), Vol. VII, no. 2, November 1981, pp 1091–1102
7.
MontaguAshley, The Nature of Human Aggression, n. 5, pp 27–29
8.
The Nature of Human Aggression, pp 137–192
9.
See, e.g., MorgenthauHans J., Politics Among Nations (New York, 1973), 5th edition; Morton A. Kaplan, Systems and Process in International Politics (New York, 1957)
10.
WaltzKenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA, 1979)
11.
GilpinRobert, War and Change In World Politics (Cambridge, 1981)
12.
War and Change In World Politics, p 69
13.
War and Change In World Politics, p 70
14.
GilpinRobert, War and Change in World Polities, n. 11, p 91
15.
War and Change in World Polities, p 92
16.
RussettBruce(Ed.):Economic Theories of International Politics (Chicago, 1968), p 7
17.
RuggieJohn Gerard, “Continuity and Transformation in World Polity: Towards a Neo-realist Synthesis,”World Politics, (Prineton), Vol. XXXV, no. 2, January 1983, pp 261–285
18.
The most widely known work in this respect is Robert KeohaneO.NyeJoseph S., Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston, 1977)
19.
WaltzKenneth, Theory of International Politics, n. 10, p 119
20.
Theory of International Politics, p 163
21.
Theory of International Politics, p 181
22.
Theory of International Politics, p 182
23.
Quoted in GilpinRobert, War and Change in World Polities, n. 11, p 214
24.
War and Change in World Polities, p 7
25.
War and Change in World Polities, pp 10–11
26.
War and Change in World Polities, p 47
27.
RogowskiRonald, “Structure, Growth and Power: Three Rationalist Accounts,”International Organisation, (Madison), Vol. 37, no. 4, Autumn 1983, pp 714–738
28.
GilpinRobort, War and Change in World Politics, n. 11, p 244
29.
War and Change in World Politics, p 244
30.
War and Change in World Politics, p 244
31.
War and Change in World Politics, p 230
32.
FalkRichard A., This Endangered Planet: Prospects and Proposals for Human Survival (New York, 1971)
33.
BullHedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London, 1977), pp 295–295
34.
BrandtWilly, Dangers and Options: The Matter of World Survival (Toronto, 1982)
35.
Quoted in BrennerMichael J., Nuclear Power and Non-Proliferation: The Remaking of US Policy (Cambridge), p 300, no. 1
36.
SaganCarl, “Nuclear War and Climatic Catastrophe: Some Policy Implications,”Foreign Affairs (New York), Vol. 62, no. 2, Winter 1983/84, pp 257–292. Subsequent research findings provide confirmation that even a limited nuclear war will bring about a “nuclear winter.” See Richard P. Turco et al, “The Climatic Effects of Nuclear War,” Scientific American, (New York) Vol. 251, no. 2, August, 1984, pp 23–33
37.
McNamaraRobsrt, “The Military Role of Nuclear Weapons: Perception and Misperceptions,”Foreign Affairs, Vol. 62, no. 1, Fall, 1983, pp 59–80
