Chapter 2: Theories of International Relations & Zombies

2.2: Realism

Imagine a world where every state is primarily concerned with its own survival, constantly wary of others. This is the central focus of realism, one of the most influential theories in international relations. Realism emphasizes the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics, operating on the assumption that each state behaves as a unitary actor—a cohesive entity that makes decisions based solely on national interest, without internal divisions or competing interests. Like chess players, states are driven by a desire to accumulate power and secure their interests in a dangerous and anarchic world where no central authority exists to enforce rules or mediate disputes. As a result, realists argue, states are often locked in a struggle for dominance or, at the very least, for survival, and their behavior reflects this constant vigilance.

One of the key components of realism is the concept of hard power. Hard power refers to the tangible ways states impose their will on others—through military might, economic sanctions, or the use of coercion. In this view, military capabilities are crucial because, in a world where no overarching authority exists to guarantee security, states must be able to defend themselves or force others to comply with their demands. For example, the U.S. military intervention in Iraq in 2003 can be seen as an application of hard power, where force was used to achieve political objectives. Economic sanctions, like those placed on Iran to halt its nuclear program, serve the same purpose of coercing states into action through punitive measures. Hard power underscores realism’s view that force or the threat of force is often necessary to protect a state’s national interest.

This focus on power and security can lead to what is known as the security dilemma. The security dilemma occurs when one state’s actions to increase its own security—such as building up its military—make other states feel less secure. This often triggers a cycle of suspicion and arms races. One state’s pursuit of defense is seen by others as a potential threat, so they build up their own forces in response. The Cold War provides a textbook example of this dilemma: the United States and the Soviet Union both expanded their nuclear arsenals out of fear that the other side might gain an advantage. What started as defensive actions by each side eventually spiraled into a full-blown arms race. The security dilemma illustrates how, in the realist world, even efforts to stay safe can make everyone feel less secure.

This brings us to the idea of zero-sum dynamics, another key feature of realism. In a zero-sum game, one side’s gain is always another side’s loss—there’s no room for mutual benefit. Realists argue that international politics often operates in this manner. If one state increases its power, another state inevitably loses relative power. This logic is evident in territorial disputes, where control over land or resources is finite, and one state’s gain comes directly at another’s expense. For example, the ongoing South China Sea dispute pits several nations against each other over control of valuable maritime territory. Any gains in sovereignty or resources by one state result in losses for the others. In such zero-sum situations, compromise or cooperation is difficult because states are inherently focused on maximizing their own gains.

To manage the inherent conflict in international relations, realism suggests that states must pay careful attention to the balance of power. This concept refers to a system in which power is distributed among various states so that no single state becomes overwhelmingly dominant. The goal is to prevent any one country from achieving a position where it can threaten the independence of others. Throughout history, the balance of power has been used as a strategy to maintain stability. For instance, in the 19th century, European powers like Britain, France, and Russia engaged in shifting alliances to ensure that no one nation, such as Napoleonic France, could dominate the continent. The balance of power keeps the international system in check by ensuring that states form alliances and counterbalances to prevent any one from becoming too powerful, thus avoiding domination or widespread conflict.

Realism: Power, Survival, and Keeping Zombies Off Your Lawn

When the dead start rising, don’t expect countries to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya.” At least, that’s what a realist would say! If we view the zombie apocalypse through the lens of realism, the international response would be characterized by a fierce competition for survival. Realists believe the international system is anarchic—there’s no overarching authority to control the actions of states. In a zombie crisis, states would focus on their own survival, securing borders, and amassing military power (including hard power like weapons and secure strongholds) to protect their populations from both zombies and other states. For example, in World War Z, Israel’s decision to build a massive wall around its borders early on is a classic realist move: prioritize national security at all costs, even if it means isolating oneself from global cooperation.

Realists would expect a security dilemma to unfold during a zombie apocalypse, as states prioritize their own survival and view others with suspicion. If one country begins stockpiling military equipment and fortifying its borders to fight zombies, neighboring states might perceive this as a potential threat rather than just a defensive measure. In response, they too would amass weapons and resources—not only to combat the undead but also to prepare for possible opportunistic attacks from rival states. This creates a zero-sum situation, where one state’s increase in security makes others feel less safe, leading to an escalating arms race. As resources like food, medicine, and safe zones become scarce, fear and mistrust could push states toward preemptive invasions, seizing supplies before others have the chance. Instead of uniting against the zombie threat, nations might spiral into conflicts driven by self-preservation, proving that even in the face of an apocalyptic crisis, realists believe states would see each other as their greatest competitors—perhaps even more dangerous than the walking dead themselves.

Realism, with its focus on power, competition, and conflict, offers a straightforward explanation for much of state behavior in international politics. However, it is not without its critics. Some argue that this theory overemphasizes conflict and neglects cooperation, which will be explored in greater depth when we discuss alternative theories like liberalism in the next section. While realism provides a powerful lens for understanding the competitive nature of international relations, it may not fully account for the instances where states do manage to work together for mutual benefit. Nonetheless, understanding realism is crucial for grasping why global politics so often seems like a high-stakes game where survival, not cooperation, is the ultimate prize.