OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

IDEALISM AND REALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS:

AN ONTOLOGICAL DEBATE

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

vrf@sapo.pt

Assistant Professor of International Relations at the University of Lusíada (Portugal), where he

teaches undergraduate courses in International Political Organisations and Regional Conflicts in

International Relations. He is a Visiting College Research Associate at Wolfson College

(Cambridge University), where he teaches seminars on International Security for Public Policy

Master’s (MPhil in Public Policy). He was a Visiting Scholar at the University of Cambridge,

Department of Politics and International Studies as well as Wolfson College, where he is a

member. He received a PhD in International Relations from the Nova de Lisboa University, a

Master’s in Economics from the University of Kent, Canterbury, UK, a Master’s in Business

Administration through the ISCTE–IUL, and a degree in Economics from the Faculty of Economics

UNL. He was an auditor of the National Defence Course at the Institute of National Defence. His

research areas include Theory of International Relations, Security Studies, Regional Conflicts,

Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. His previous experience includes

positions as Vice President at JP Morgan in Paris and Madrid. He was an Associate Consultant at

McKinsey & Company and Senior Manager at AT Kearney in Lisbon as well as a Director in

companies such as OGMA – Aeronautical Industry of Portugal, SA and IDD, SA, in the defence

field, and the Daily News, SA, in the media field.

Abstract

The debate between realism and idealism continues to mark the discipline of International

Relations. On the one hand, realism argues that international politics is a struggle for power

and a quest for survival, which results in a condition of permanent conflict between States

without any possibility of evolution or progress. On the other hand, idealism considers it

possible to build a world of peaceful coexistence, prosperity and well-being, achieved through

cooperation and based on values and aspirations shared by humans. The object of this article

is to analyse the debate between idealism and realism, considering it as an ontological debate

and taking into account the controversy it has generated. The argument presented here is

that both realism and idealism are two responses to the creation and maintenance of

international order, that is, how States relate in international society; however these

responses are not mutually exclusive and can coexist in constant tension with one another.

An analysis of internationalist thought of two authors, Hans Morgenthau and Raymond Aron,

is also presented, which relates to how they are positioned in this debate as well as

International Relations as a whole.

Keywords

Idealism; Realism; Ontology; Power; Ethics.

How to cite this article

Fernandes, Vítor Ramon (2016). "Idealism and realism in international relations: an

ontological debate". JANUS.NET e-journal of International Relations, Vol. 7, Nº. 2, November

2016-April 2017. Consulted [online] on the date of last consultation,

observare.autonoma.pt/janus.net/en_vol7_n2_art2 (http://hdl.handle.net/11144/2781)

Article received on March 21, 2016 and accepted for publication on September 19, 2016

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

IDEALISM AND REALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS:

AN ONTOLOGICAL DEBATE

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

International Relations has been somewhat dominated by questions of an ideological

nature associated with different currents of thought that gave rise to the so-called “great

debates”. These debates are part of the history of International Relations. Thus, with

reference to Brian Schmidt (2005: 4) in his contribution to the well-known Handbook of

International Relations, the history and evolution of International Relations have been

counted as "starting with the 'great debate' between idealists and realists, defining the

discipline", a debate that began between the two world wars, specifically in the 1920s

and 1930s. Although there are numerous documents related to the study of international

relations, among which is the more-cited History of the Peloponnesian War, written by

historian and Athenian general Thucydides, the purpose of this analysis is to match the

chronological framework of analysis with the university institutionalisation of the

discipline, which occurred with the autonomous creation of International Relations at the

University of Aberystwyth, UK, in 1919.

The argument presented here considers the debate between idealists and realists as

opposing ontologies, that is, two different perspectives of the human being and human

existence, the deepest two conceptions of the world, with different philosophical

implications in relation to human activity and the elements that constitute the field of

international relations. Idealists, whose thinking is linked to the ideas of liberal

internationalist, consider that despite the international system being anarchic there is a

communitarian consciousness, the possibility of progress in the international system,

achieved through cooperation and progress towards a lasting peace, prosperity and social

well-being, based on values and aspirations shared by humans. In contrast, realists have

a negative opinion of human nature and consider international anarchy as being

characterised by a struggle for State survival and vying national interests, where the

conquest of power is of vital importance given the ever-present possibility of conflict.

These ontological visions are not reconcilable, and can coexist in constant tension with

each other.

The beginning of the debate

In Hedley Bull’s article entitled The Theory of International Politics 1919-1969, the author

recorded the existence of a group of authors that he defines as “idealists”. They are

generally characterised as a set of theorists who believed in the idea of progress and the

The translation of this article was funded by national funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e

a Tecnologia - as part of OBSERVARE project with the reference UID/CPO/04155/2013, with the aim of

publishing Janus.net. Text translated by Thomas Rickard.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

possibility of an evolution in international relations that would give rise to a more peaceful

world (Bull 1972: 185). These predominantly European authors considered the creation

of international organisations as a way to promote the ideal of peace and security among

states, of which the League of Nations is highlighted – created following the signing of

the Treaty of Versailles on 28th June 1919 at the end of the First World War – as well as

the creation of international regimes with norms and rules accepted by States. The issue

of moral nature also assumed considerable importance in the context of his thought,

although the writings are somewhat scattered, and it is not evident that they were

organised into a homogeneous theoretical body.

From the late 1930s of the twentieth century, a number of other theorists who became

known as “realists” reacted against this view that the world could be governed based on

idealist principles. According to realists, we live in a historical context that is

characterised by conflict – which is completely contrary to the idea of harmony conveyed

by idealists – and relations between States are governed by power. In the European

context, the 1930s corresponds to the period when Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany,

in which Hannah Arendt's is in exile, specifically in August 1933 after leaving prison and

crossing the Czech border, and in which a process begins that culminates in the start of

the Second World War in 1939.

It is precisely on the eve of the Second World War that the first attempt to systematise

the ideas then in circulating came in, which came about with the work of Carr’s The

Twenty Years' Crisis (1995). It was this author who summed up the opposition between

realism and what he called a “utopia”; what differentiates the two perspectives are two

contrasting views regarding the field of international relations. The perspective of

utopianism features a proactive vision that believes in progress and evolution, while

realists accept reality without the possibility of change or evolution, characterised by

recurrent determinism (Carr, 1995: 12). In his words, his intention in writing the work

resulted from a "passionate desire to avoid war", a teleological aspect of the science of

international politics from its conspicuous start that had arisen following a terrible war

between 1914 and 1918. This international environment that lived very particularly in

Europe is important because it allows us to contextualise the work in time and space, as

these are the dimensions that allow the systematic characterisation of the utopian and

idealist thought - as Carr called them - and realist thinking.

In the opinion of E. H. Carr, the evolution of international relations had been up until the

utopian era, a fact that attributed a still poorly structured character to this new science.

However, this did not mean that a complete departure from the utopianism of

International Relations was defended, as he believed that utopia and realism were

constant and necessary elements that should coexist in an essential and permanent

tension. On the one hand, a utopian is seen as proactive, someone who believes in free

will and the ability to reject the reality of their own volition, while the realist tends to be

deterministic, accepting reality as it is presented without ever trying to change it. Citing

Carr (1995: 10): "Utopia and reality are the two facets of political science. A solid political

thought and sound political life can only be observed where both are present".

Between distinct views and attempts to legitimate positions

But the truth is that this work has been the subject of several controversies, related both

to the general reading that is made of it as well as to its bias of utopian thought. In the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

opinion of Peter Wilson (1998), a debate that had opposing idealist and realist views

never came into being, and is even misleading as historical fact. The idealistic thinking

of the period between the two world wars, featured in The Twenty Years' Crisis, was no

more than a rhetorical invented by E. H. Carr to discredit a number of issues that were

at odds (Wilson 1998: 13). Ashworth (2002: 34-35) has a similar opinion, believing that

a proper debate between idealism and realism never existed, at least not in the way that

it usually does in International Relations, and its construction was essentially intended to

discredit normative thought in the discipline as well as international liberalism through

the idea of a victory of realism over idealism.

Fundamentally for Wilson (1998: 14), what existed was a wide range of opinions and

theories associated with various authors, where most were linked to liberal

internationalist thought, namely authors such as Alfred Zimmern, Arnold Toynbee and

Norman Angell. This is not forgetting the very US President Woodrow Wilson, whose

writings are dispensed and whose thinking had few things in common.

The notion of legitimising some ideas over others is shared by several authors. As

highlighted by Brian Schmidt (2005: 8), there is often a tendency to write history with

the view of legitimising contemporary research programmes, which allows references to

the field of study in a way that reveals authority. The problem is not only that historical

analysis be used to enforce or corroborate an argument relating to this, but the fact that

history itself is altered and distorted in order to legitimise a position a priori or to criticise

another person's position.

This is also the opinion of C.G. Thies (2002), who argues that the most common way to

assess progress in international relations theory has been through the construction of

the history of the discipline by certain communities of researchers. When this exercise is

fruitful, it serves to legitimise the position of this community of researchers against the

positions of their opponents, creating an idea of progress in the discipline. In his view,

the so-called “great debates” have marked progress in the discipline of International

Relations, and have served to keep the identity of certain communities of researchers

(Thies, 2002: 148). Underlying this argument is also, as stated by Peter Wilson (1998:

1), the fact that there is no unified body of texts and authors who call themselves

“idealists”, or one or more authors respected by the research community, which means

that “realists” refer to them in a generic way, and only on occasions refer concretely to

articles or authors connoted with idealism.

Other authors give greater relevance to the implications of the interpretation of E. H.

Carr’s work, and to the foundations of idealist and realist thought in international

relations theory. According to the opinion of Ken Booth (1991), which can be

characterised as deconstructivist, the work of Edward Carr suffers from some confusion

regarding the way it is positioned relative to utopianism and realism. This relatively

ambiguous position makes it especially remembered as he criticises the impossibility of

reconciliation between utopia and reality. For Ken Booth, and as mentioned above,

Edward Carr also identified the need to accept both utopia and reality as necessary,

where power and morality coexist.

The ambiguity of Carr’s language also led to a certain use by realists, in an attempt to

hold the author to his thesis, when in fact Carr – at various points of his work – also

criticised realism, considering that international order could not only be founded on

power. In the opinion of some authors such as Molloy (2014: 460),

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

"Carr’s criticism of utopianism and realism are similar in tone and

content".

For Ken Booth (1996: 329), there is a simplification and tampering of the positions of

key authors, in particular regarding the interpretation commonly made of the supposed

idealist position of Davis and the mythologised realist position of Carr. What this also

shows, from my point of view, is the existence of a quasi-Manichaeism in the field of

International Relations since the institutionalisation of the discipline, which is

characterised by confrontation between realist and idealist thinking.

Different philosophies of history

Andreas Osiander (1998: 409) agrees with the idea that the debate between idealists

and realists presented by E. H. Carr in The Twenty Years' Crisis reveals a distorted view

of idealist thought. However, Osiander has a different view, in his revisionist opinion, on

the thinking of idealist authors – which are fundamentally the same as those cited by

Hedley Bull (1972) in The Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969. His view was

interpreted from the work of E. H. Carr by realist authors in a way that supported their

arguments in defence of realist thought.

These idealist authors were familiar with realist theses, but what distinguished them

above all was a different way of looking at the history of philosophy. For idealists, we

have a philosophy of directional history, while in the case of realists it is cyclical. Osiander

(1998: 418-419) argues that much literature of idealists is based on false premises, and

that while idealists adopted a directional interpretation of history, realist adopted a

cyclical interpretation, combined with a vision of recurrence and repetition, as mentioned

also by Martin Wight (1966: 25): "Why is there no international theory?". However,

according to Osiander (1998), although the idea that realists and idealists are separate

in their views of history, which was in circulation in the early twentieth century, many

authors of International Relations argue that what actually occurred was a construction

by realists to sustain their own position.

The opinion of Osiander resembles the idea defended by Robert Crawford (2000) about

the existence of a dichotomy and a tension between idealist and realist thought, reflecting

opposing views of reality. In the opinion of the latter author, the discipline of International

Relations has been increasingly subjected to scientific methods, where realist thinking

appears as a reference – a current standard against which all others are compared,

leading to a monistic conception of discipline.

In reality International Relations as a disciplinary area is crossed by multiple and varied

intellectual traditions, and it is not possible to choose any one as preferential. At the

same time, it is also true that there has been a tendency to consider the debate between

idealism and realism as a serious confrontation of ideas, but easily reconcilable in a

unitary conception, through which a unified and consistent discipline can built, based on

a scientific methodology (Crawford, 2000: 4-5). However, for Robert Crawford, the

idealism-realism debate is a debate of ideas that are in open opposition and cannot be

reconciled, as they are based on different ontologies.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

The English School as an attempt to reconcile extreme positions

The English School is worth mentioning in this ontological debate between realism and

idealism, which is commonly denominated as the via media in International Relations in

the context of the Grotian tradition between realist and revolutionist traditions. The

English School has undergone a major evolution over time, but in the version given by

Hedley Bull and Martin Wight, essential discussion is centred on the existence of an

international society and its nature in a Grotian sense, and more particularly the

institutions that build this society, such as war, diplomacy and the balance of power.

The main argument of the English School is that sovereign states are part of a society.

This society is anarchic in the sense that there is no authority above those states that

can coerce or punish for the breach of established laws, but that does not mean it is a

chaotic society. However, this also does not mean that violence is not recognised and

taken into account, although the English school assign great importance to normative

issues, in particular rules, laws, institutions, and moral, as important elements in the

organisation of this international society.

In the opinion of Dunne (1998: 1), the English School has points of convergence with

realism, though it should not be confused with it. For Dunne (1995: 128-129) English

realism between the late 1930s and early 1950s is the starting point for understanding

the evolution of the English School. Since the publication in 1939 of the book The Twenty

Years' Crisis by E. H. Carr, several other authors have focused on realist thinking and

idealist ideas in order to better understand the international context and the interaction

among States.

According to this author, the positioning of Carr as a realist is, at the very least,

controversial, but Dunne believes that in Carr's analysis of the antinomy between realism

and idealism, there are commonalities with the English School. With regard to Booth

(1991: 530-531), Carr did not consider realism a winning current over idealism, because

that view does not take into account the antinomian view of the author. As stated by

Dunne (1995: 129), Carr's relationship with the English School is ambiguous. It is from

here that Hedley Bull criticises the lack of recognition of Carr in relation to the

international society, and Martin Wight (2004) elaborates on international politics,

referring to power politics as inevitable. The evolution seen from the early 1950s in the

thought of authors like Martin Wight goes towards a concern for international norms and

institutions, and the development of theory led to the creation of the British Committee,

which meets for the first time 1959. The committee ended up not involving Carr, but the

reasons for his non-inclusion seem to have had more to do with personal issues than

anything scientific.

For the situations that occurred in an international context and that underlay different

ontological perspectives, the analysis of Wight (1994) on international politics deserves

recognition, which distinguishes three traditions: the realist, the rationalist and the

revolutionary. In the same vein, although more attentive to notions of solidarity and

community than Martin Wight, there is Hedley Bull’s (2002) The Anarchical Society,

where the author defines and elaborates on realist, Grotian and Kantian (or universalist)

traditions. Hedley Bull's argument (2002: 39) is that the international community reflects

the three traditions – but at certain times or geographies – and takes into account

different policies adopted by States, with one of these elements being able to prevail

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

over the others. The fundamental idea behind this rationalist (or Grotian) perspective of

Hedley Bull is that relations between States are conditioned by prudence, as well as moral

imperatives and cooperation. Both Martin Wight and Hedley Bull consider that this

perspective is between realist and Kantian perspectives, hence the designation via media

between realist and idealist currents.

Hedley Bull (2002: 13) also distinguishes between the international system and

international society, in that an international society implies the existence of an

international system but not vice versa, since the existence of an international society

requires that certain features are present in the international system. More specifically,

international society exists through States’ awareness of the existence of common

interests and values that bind and unite them in some way, making them share their

efforts in work developed through various international institutions. At heart, the thought

of these authors includes the three concepts mentioned above.

Members of the English School seem always to oscillate between realism and idealism, a

permanent tension between different ontologies, tending to one of these notions, or, as

stated by Tim Dunne (1995: 126), combining the three traditions of Martin Wight, where

the notion of international society derives from the rationalism of Vattel.

Morgenthau, power and ethics of responsibility

For Hans Morgenthau (1985: 37), the struggle for power is always present in all politics,

saying that

"the desire for power is the distinctive element of international

politics, like all politics, international politics is by necessity power

politics".

This author emphasises the power struggle but also the tragic nature of politics, which is

attached to human nature, and that is defined by an unlimited desire to rule over other

men (Morgenthau 1946: 193). He also believes that

"it is this ubiquity of the desire for power that apart and beyond any

selfishness or evil purpose, constitutes the ubiquity of evil in human

action" (Morgenthau, 1946: 194).

And that's what politics is, in essence, a struggle for power without limits or end (1946:

201).

The Morgenthau position denotes a certain tragic sense in the relationship that man has

with power, from the tension within itself, as pointed out by Rengger (2007: 124), also

reflecting his ontological position. But while the demand for power is the main ambition

of man in politics, this does not mean that it is the only ambition (Cozette, 2008: 668).

Moral concerns exist in Morgenthau’s work, as he also states that

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

"man is a political animal by nature, he is a political scientist by

chance or choice, he is a moralist because he is a man"

(Morgenthau, 1946: 7).

That is, moral judgments are considered characteristics of the human being and that's

what makes us truly human.

Contrary to what is usually considered, and despite his pessimistic view on international

politics, the author has ethical and moral concerns beyond the question of the struggle

for power. In the opinion of Molloy (2003: 82), although for Morgenthau all political

decisions are due to abstract moral principles, the author considers a moral approach to

politics possible if it is based on a morality of the lesser evil.

However, for Morgenthau, in essence international politics is not consistent with good

intentions, which require an ethical responsibility, as what is at stake is the security of a

State. Contrary to idealistic arguments, international politics involves difficult choices

that are possibly painful. Morgenthau recognises the ethical need to justify actions and

does so through a choice between the two antinomies of Max Weber (1963: 206), the

ethics of responsibility and the ethics of conviction, with his preference clearly being the

first. This concern with the state's survival, above all, and the choice of an ethic of

responsibility are aspects that are close to Max Weber.

What is to be considered is that although there are ethical and moral values, political

man has abstracted them onto his political decisions, which is a result of his ontological

position. And for this reason, his position is not amoral or devoid of ethics, he just has

abstracted morals in his actions and decisions, despite having to justify them in ethical

terms, thereby justifying his realist position and rejection of idealism.

Aron: the tension between realism and idealism

By analysing idealism and realism, Aron (2004: 567-596) puts us in a position of some

tension between these two ontological positions.

For this author, it is an illusion to think that one can avoid conflicts, particularly war, and

that lasting peace can be achieved through only a diplomacy based on normative

considerations of good conduct and principled morals. Idealism is seen by some authors

as a deep conviction in total compliance with the rules and legal norms set in conduct

among states in order to avoid war. Moreover, this belief assumes that all states are

interested in maintaining the law and that in the case of aggression against one of them,

the others would volunteer to assist the attacked.

But these principles of collective security are difficult to implement, because they imply

too, from the start, an agreement by States on the definition of who is the aggressor and

a shared sentiment about the acts committed. Even if the aggressor State is easily

identified, the formation of alliances or coalitions for defence of the attacked State is

required, which presupposes that other states are indeed interested and engaged in the

maintenance of international order and agree to act in order to punish the offender. In

this type of process a whole range of situations can be seen, and depending on the

relative strengths of the aggressor State and coalition several outcomes are possible,

from capitulation to total war – results that turn out to be contrary to the objectives

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

intended. Idealist doctrine therefore becomes dangerous with respect to the conduct of

foreign policy, to the extent that it closes in on itself through the adoption of normative

principles. In this regard, Raymond Aron (2004: 572) states that:

The critique of the "idealist illusion” is not only pragmatic, but also

moral. Idealist diplomacy often becomes fanatical, it divides States

into good and bad, into peace loving and belligerent, and imagines

a definitive peace through the punishment of the first and the

triumph of second.

However, it is interesting that, when it comes to this issue of the "idealist illusion”, Aron

(2004: 578) compares the position of H. Von Treitschke and G. F. Kennan. Treitschke

was a German nationalist historian who fully accepted power politics, including war,

considering it as necessary and an exalting prudence from power politics and nationalism;

and Kennan, who resignedly accepted power politics as a way to avoid other greater

evils. Both Treitschke and Kennan make an apology for prudence and consider power

important. But curiously – and Raymond Aron stresses this fact – Treitschke considered

himself an idealist while G. F. Kennan was not opposed to being classified as a realist.

What seems to be at stake is that the idealist, as well as the realist, must understand

their era, not ignore the possibility of violence and accept that the resolution of conflict

requires taking into account the balance of power among states, and that action should

include prudence and diplomatic and strategic conduct. An incompatibility does not

necessarily exist between being an idealist and recognising violence and war. What

Raymond Aron truly opposes - referring to the “idealist illusion” – is the disregarding of

war and violence to act in international relations, which most idealists of the time seemed

to reveal. It is not, therefore, condemning idealism completely, but points out some

weaknesses.

Beside this, Aron (2004: 581) considers that realism best takes into account and

recognises what the selfishness of States and their interests are compared to idealism.

However, when considering power as the ultimate objective of States, realists –

particularly from North American – do not take into account the idea that although the

States coexist without the existence of an arbitrator or a supranational politic, they limit

their freedom of action through the obligations they incur, namely the signing of

agreements and treaties, although they may also resort to armed force to resolve

conflicts (Aron, 2004: 582). Thus, the absence of a sovereign power is not incompatible

with the notion that international life cannot be contractually ruled (in the sense of

political philosophy), with the existence of rules and norms of conduct, which, however,

does not exclude or prevent the use of violence. And it stresses that the realist school is

a little set back from traditional European thought, because the obsession of realists with

power make them always see an alternative to law or morality, and ultimately define

international politics by power and not by the absence of a arbiter or a politic above

States. In reality, in the face of national egoism that prevails in between states in the

"state of nature", the diplomatic and strategic conduct of States - to use the terminology

of Raymond Aron, and that includes the exercise of diplomatic functions of diplomats

themselves as well as strategy and war, which are duties of the soldier, taking one

another as symbolic characters of the two types of conduct – should seek to conform to

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

normative principles and ideas, and not to what happens to animals in the jungle ( Aron,

2004: 568-569)

This position is in line with the fact that, through their leaders, States need and have the

obligation to safeguard their vital interests, acting in accordance with norms and customs

that may be more or less respected, but with the risk – always latent – that war is decreed

by the leaders.

However, both idealist and realist thinking are considered extreme positions. The

idealists, for reasons related to the occurrence of the atrocities of the First World War

and its rejection of the importance of power in international relations; and realists,

precisely because of their emphasis on power in opposition and reaction to this other

school of thought. It is this need of reaction that explains, according to Aron (2004: 16),

the extreme positioning of realism in relation to idealism, in his inadequate opinion.

The internationalist thought of Aron reflects numerous tensions and antinomies, among

which it is worth pointing out idealism versus realism. For Aron, idealism and realism are

not contradictory concepts, but complementary; this antagonism, at its core, is no more

than a part of the “eternal debate” between Machiavellianism and moralism.

The debate between realism and idealism can be characterised by two extreme and

opposite ontological views on international relations, which results from different

considerations and actions in relation to how States relate in international society. Still,

they are not mutually exclusive. In the context of the international politics of States, the

question that arises is whether they, in their capacity as sovereigns, have the obligation

to obey moral criteria or other interests, in particular legal or rules, or on the contrary,

act in a way that best serves their purposes and interests, governed solely by the

objective of maximising power. It is, of course, two different responses to the problem

of order, which fall into a certain tradition of thought in the field of International

Relations; they can, however, overlap.

References

Aron, R. (2004). Paix et guerre entre les nations. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.

Ashworth, L. (2002). «Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist

History of International Relations». International Relations, 16 (1), pp. 33-51.

Booth, K. (1991). «Security in anarchy: utopian realism in theory and practice».

International Affairs, 67 (3), pp. 527-545.

Booth, K. (1996). «75 years on: rewriting the subject´s past – reinventing its future».

In S. Smith, K. Booth, M. Zalewski (eds). International Theory: Positivism & Beyond.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 328-339.

Bull, H. (1972). «The Theory of International Politics 1919-1969». In B. Porter (ed). The

Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics 1919-1969. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

pp. 30-55. Republicado In J. Der Derian, ed. (1995). International Theory: Critical

Investigations. Londres: Macmillan, pp. 181-211.

Bull, H. (2002). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Nova Iorque:

Palgrave.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

Buzan, B. (2004). From International Society to World Society? English School Theory

and the Social Structure of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carr, E. (1995). The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939. Londres: MacMillan.

Coady, C. A. (2008). Messy Morality: The Challenge of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Cozette, M. (2008). «What Lies Ahead: Classical Realism on the Future of International

Relations». International Studies Review, 10, pp. 667-679.

Crawford, R. (2000). Idealism and Realism in International Relations: Beyond the

Discipline. Londres: Routledge.

Dunne, T. (1995). «International Society: Theoretical Promises Fulfilled?». Cooperation

and Conflict, 30 (2), pp. 125-154.

Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing International Society: A History of the English School,

Houndmills: MacMillan Press, Ltd.

Dunne, T. Liberalism. In Baylis, J. e Smith, S (eds) (2014). The Globalization of World

Politics. Oxford e Nova Iorque: Oxford University Press, Cap. 7, pp. 113-125.

Linklater, A. e Suganami, H. (2006). The English School of International Relations: A

Contemporary Reassessment, Cambridge University Press.

Molloy, S. (2003). «Realism: A Problematic Paradigm». Security Dialogue, 34 (1), pp.

71-85.

Molloy, S. (2014). «Pragmatism, Realism and the ethics of crisis and transformation in

international relations». International Theory, 6 (3), pp. 454-489.

Morgenthau, H. (1946). Scientific Man versus Power Politics. Chicago: Chicago University

Press.

Morgenthau, H. (1985). Politics Among Nations – The Struggle for Power and Peace. Nova

Iorque: McGraw-Hill.

Osiander, A. (1998). «Rereading early Twenty-Century IR theory: Idealism revisited».

International Studies Quarterly, 42 (3), pp. 409-432.

Ramon-Fernandes, V. (2013). «As antinomias políticas e a constituição da ordem

internacional segundo Raymond Aron». Revista Portuguesa de Ciência Política,

Observatório Político, nº 3, pp. 135-141.

Ramon-Fernandes, V. (2015). «Ontologia e Epistemologia da Ordem Internacional em

Raymond Aron». Relações Internacionais, IPRI, 45, Mar: 2015, pp. 111-122.

Rengger, N. J. (2000). International Relations, Political Theory and the Problem of Order

– Beyond International Relations Theory? Londres: Routledge.

Rengger, N. J. (2007). «Realism, tragedy, and the anti-pelagian imagination in

international political thought». In Michael Willams (ed.). Realism Reconsidered – The

Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

Cap. 5, pp. 118-136.

Schmidt, B. (2005). «On the history and historiography of International Relations». In

W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, B. A. Simmons (eds.). Handbook of International Relations. 2ª

ed. Londres: Sage Publications, pp. 3-28.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 7, Nº. 2 (November 2016-April 2017), pp. 14-25

Idealism and realism in international relations: an ontological debate

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

Thies, C.G. (2002). «Progress, history and identity in International Relations Theory: The

case of the idealist-realist debate». European Journal of International Relations, 8 (2),

pp. 147-185.

Weber, M. (1963). Le savant et le politique. Paris: Librairie Plon.

Wight, M. (1966). «Why is there no international theory?». In J. Der Derian, ed. (1995).

International Theory: Critical Investigations. Londres: Macmillan, pp. 17-34.

Wight, M. (1994). «Edição e notas de G. Wight e B. Porter». International Theory - The

Three Traditions. Londres: Leicester University Press.

Wight, M., (2004). «Edição de H. Bull e C. Holbraad». Power Politics. Londres:

Continuum.

Wilson, P. (1998). «The myth of the ‘First Great Debate’». In T. Dunne, M. Cox, K.

Booth, eds. (1998). The Eighty Years’ Crisis: International Relations 1919-1999.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-15.