Globalization
Globalization has occurred for hundreds of years, but it has not been until recently that globalization has so greatly affected the sovereignty of the state. Globalization can be defined as:

a process or set of processes which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions--assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity, and impact--generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power. [1]

The exercise of power is the concept germane to the discussion of realism. In a world of increasing communication, financial interdependence, and marketization, the role of the state is diminishing along with its sovereignty. Nothing in globalization has reduced sovereignty more than the marketization of force. In late 2006, the Pentagon was relying on nearly 100,000 government contractors for operations inside Iraq. [2] Tasks included providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, and fixing equipment. During the 1980s, the now defunct Executive Outcomes paramilitary organization was responsible for changing the outcome of many African civil wars. [3]

The marketization of force poses many risks to states. Several legal issues have arisen regarding the conduct of private military companies and the responsibility of the employing state for their conduct. States face the reality that national armies are not the only entities fighting wars. Conducting war is still a power reserved to the states, but it is increasingly possible that states will rely less on their citizenry to provide defense. This increase in privatization threatens one of the most vital roles of the state.

Non-State Actors
On September 11^th, 2001, the United States was attacked by a non-governmental organization and attacked the state that harbored that terrorist organization in response. The realist theory has come to explain why the United States responded aggressively to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the inability of international organizations to suppress military superiority. [4] In the wake of 9/11, international organizations such as the United Nations have proven inadequate in their response to the apparent threat of terrorism.

The events of September 11^th crystallized the problem of terrorism by bringing it to American soil. Terrorism has long been used as a means of political violence undertaken by non-governmental organizations with the purpose of gaining support for their goals or coercing their opponents. Proponents of terrorism may employ a variety of different means to reach their ultimate end and are not bound by international law. [5]

Terrorists carry out social and political violence in an effort to gain support for their cause and erode that of the state. In an anarchic environment, terrorist activities have brought a balance to the international system. In the United States, there has been a clear change as combat training has shifted to desert based operations and funding to intelligence and homeland security efforts have increased. [6] The strategic focus on terrorism by states suggests that non-state actors have a place in the realist paradigm, that the paradigm is being redefined due to its changing global environment.

Moral Imperatives
The realist theory was created without any moral imperatives for the state to follow. Philosophically, Kant defined two types of moral imperatives: the categorical and the hypothetical imperative. A categorical imperative is one that must be performed under all circumstances. On the other hand, the hypothetical imperative is conditional; meaning that in order to get A, one must perform B. A hypothetical imperative is not justifiable in itself, but only as a means to an end. [7]

There exist no categorical imperatives in international relations. However, over time there have arisen many hypothetical imperatives. No state is required to perform a moral act, but it is in their best interest to do so. States donate numerous amounts in foreign aid in hopes of yielding a positive result. These actions are not performed because they are good in and of themselves, but because of the positive effects they may have for the state. Realism accounts for this, but it does not account for the overwhelming use of soft power by states. Typically, hard power is a state’s military force and soft power is its economic or moral force. States must rely on more than their military force in order to create a stable international system.

The Future of Realism
Realism is prevalent today in all actions of international affairs. The most common reason why states voluntarily enter into global markets, erode their sovereignty, or enter into international treaties is that it is in the best interest of the state. Globalization has caused the greatest erosion of state sovereignty. The ultimate result of globalization could potentially be a state run by a corporation. States are already privatizing military force and other services; the privatization of the state may not be too far in the future. Terrorism has caused states to target other states; states must adequately define which states harbor terrorists to prevent widespread conflict. Morality has caused states to reevaluate their foreign policy, allowing them to rely more on human rights and foreign aid to countries as a means of spreading their influence. This threatens state sovereignty since the incentive for these actions is based on international pressure.

The importance of realism is as relevant now as it was during the Cold War. However, realism is no longer guided by the same set of principles. Terrorism, globalization, and morality are issues facing states today that were not great threats half a century ago. Realism will redefine itself, but how far will it have to digress from its origin to fit the current international climate?

Share your thoughts on this article on the GW Discourse Discussion Board

[1] David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathon Perraton, Global Transformations. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), 16

[2] Renae Merle, “Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq,” The Washington Post. (5 December 2006), D01

[3] Anthony LoBaido, “Executive Outcomes: A new kind of army for privatized global warfare,” (WorldNetDaily. 10 Mar 2007), <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16671>

[4] Jack Snyder, “One World, Rival Theories,” Foreign Policy. (Nov/Dec2004), 59

[5] Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy in a Time of Terror. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003), 190; Ted Honderich, Terrorism for Humanity. (London: Pluto Press, 2003), 15; Robert Pape, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. (New York: Random House, 2005), 9

[6] Jim Garamone, “BRAC 2005: Force Structure, Military Value at Heart of BRAC,” American Forces Press Service. (March 10, 2007), <http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31732>

[7] Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Trans. James W. Ellington. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1993), 24-27