Essay: Human nature and the relationships between nation-states

The idea that human nature is fundamental in International Relations is strongly rooted in both Liberalism and Realism. The first section of this essay will outline some of the Liberal arguments as to why human nature is such a large factor when it comes to explaining the relationships between nation-states. Liberalism tends to lean towards the more optimistic view that humans are by nature inherently good and argues that interactions such as humanitarian aid and charity towards other nations helps to support these claims. However, the second section of this essay will focus on realism which tackles the more animalistic side to the human psyche such as aggression and war. Realism argues that it is the inherent aggression that resides within us as humans that dictates much of our relationships between nation states. In the second section of this essay the analysis will be focused around the idea that as humans we are wired towards aggression and its connotations regarding the relationships between nation states.
From a liberal perspective the question of human nature within international relations can be linked to the idea that humans are inherently good, although they are clear that this is not always a constant, more so that we have the potential for good. Liberal internationalism is a strand of liberal theory which pontificates that political interaction i.e. the relationships between nation states, needs to be ‘framed in terms of a universal human condition’ (An Introduction to International Relations Theory, Jill Steans, Lloyd Pettiford, Thomas Diez, Imad El-Anis 2010) instead of around any given nation state. Meaning that as the question suggests human nature and how we interact with one another is directly related to how we should shape the relationships between nation states. Key classical liberal theorists such as John Locke (Locke: Political Writings, John Locke, David Wootton, published in 1993) and Jeremy Bentham (Volume 1, Part 1 of The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Now First Collected: Under the Superintendence of His Executor, John Bowring, originally publisher W. Tait 1838) have theorised that humans on a fundamental level operate in a self-preserving manner and are inherently reasonable in their relationships with others, meaning that there is no need for the state to interfere too much in controlling its subjects. This idea of humans being inherently reasonable would support liberal claims that the relationships between nation states should allow independent states to operate on its own terms without the need for foreign powers interfering with the day to day operations of that state. However, this idea is quite clearly undermined by events throughout history where certain states have abused their power and acted in a very aggressive way towards its subjects, causing friction between states. A modern example of this would be the recent events in Syria and the alleged use of chemical weapons by President Assad on protesting civilians, causing outrage on the global stage. It is quite clear from reading both modern liberal texts as well as classical liberal texts that the common trend throughout is a much more optimistic view on human nature than their realism counterparts. Liberal theory supports the rationality of mankind and believe that fundamentally all humans are willing and able to co-exist and cooperate with one another in order to achieve a harmonious society and progress socially (Russett, B. 2010. Liberalism. In: Dunne, T. et al. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity.  2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.). Unlike in realism where the idea that humans act in self-interest the and individual actor fights against everyone else for personal gain, liberalism puts forward the notion that humans fight with rational self-interest in that acting as a collective can “lead to better outcomes for all, or at least for the majority” (Lawson, S. (2012). International Relations. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press. ).
Realism offers a less optimistic view on human nature towards international relations than liberalism as it pays more focus on our aggressive animalistic nature which as realist supporters suggest fuels our relationships between nation states. The major problem facing international relations in the eyes of realists is that of anarchy in that there is no centralised power higher than the state (An Introduction to International Relations Theory, Jill Steans, Lloyd Pettiford, Thomas Diez, Imad El-Anis An Introduction to International Relations Theory, 2010) and so nation states are free to act as they wish towards one another with little consequence and so the strong are free to prey on the weak “every man against every man”
(Morgenthau, H.J. (1946). Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. London: Latimer House Limited) as is our nature as humans or so realists believe. Classical realists such as Thomas Hobbes saw humans as machines relentlessly pursuing our own goals and a very selfish and animalistic manner (Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Dent, 1676). This idea that human nature was mechanical in its pursuit of pleasures and avoidance of pain was also extended to the idea, back when Hobbes was alive, and the commonwealth acting in a self-preserving manner. Hobbes’ theories on the commonwealth can now be applied to this argument pf how modern nation states form relationships, realists could apply this classical argument to say that as humans we look after ourselves and this also applies on a larger scale to state as a self-preserving actor, thus our attitude towards other nation states will first and foremost be one of aggression not only to defend our own but to see what we might gain from other actors. A prime example that would support realist claims that nation states operate with one another on a very selfish basis would be with the Britain’s relationship with Saudi Arabia a country with shocking human rights records as well as suspected links to Daesh and other extreme Islamic groups, yet because of its oil rich status in organisations such as OPEC western countries seem to overlook this so selfish gain. Other modern examples would include relations with China and Russia for personal gain. To put it on the level of human nature nation states constantly pursue pleasure and avoid pain just the same as Hobbes’ theories in Leviathan.  It’s this incessant need for violent response and aggression within the human nature which leads to mistrust between state actors causing a constant power struggle which inevitably leads to war (Van Evera, S. (1999). Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca: Cornell University Press). It is widely accepted that classical realists and neo-realists believe the relationships between nation states are affected in different ways. Classical realists believe that it is solely human nature which fuels this desire for aggression displayed on countless occasions. Whereas neo-realism goes somewhat further into explaining why we may act like this on an international stage as they believe that it is the anarchical nature of international relations which brings out the aggressive nature residing within us. As I previously stated due to the fact that there is no higher power than the state we are given leave to act governed only by our own consciences which can lead to many atrocities and a attitude first phrased by Herbert Spencer ‘survival of the fittest’ (Herbert Spencer, Principles of Biology, 1864) in which geo politics such as the size and resources available to one state means that it will take advantage of a weaker one.
To conclude whilst both liberalism and realism offer explanation for the relationships between nation states, realism is more widely accepted as the leading theory in international relations and the same applies for human nature. The simple fact that humans will consistent and frequently go to war between nation states and only find peace when it benefits them shows that we are by nature aggressive towards one another. Within realism it is clear that more modern theories regarding neo-realism go even further in explaining relationships between nation states as it explores the circumstances which might bring out this animalistic nature residing in the human psyche and how a lack of consequences can bring it to the forefront.