Introduction

For generations, the dichotomy between idealism and realism has provided a thesis, an antithesis, and then, at the end, a pragmatic synthesis. Its genesis can be traced back to both traditional Indian philosophers and ancient Greek thinkers, from Chanakya’s eclectic approach towards statism to Shakespeare’s use of the word “Machiavellian” as an adjective. The constant struggle between both schools of thought has formed the foundation for almost every social science, but dominantly that of political science and international relations. The antagonism between “what should be” and “what ought to be” entered the realm of international relations as an academic theoretical practice in the early 20th century. Since then, global politics has never maintained an absolute equilibrium; it has either an inclination towards the left or right, liberal institutionalism or realism. In the year 2024, almost every major democracy witnessed national elections, and the mandate in countries like America, Germany, and even India is signaling a shift towards the rise of the global right. As the Trump administration took charge, every nation pondered over the question: whether liberal institutionalism is still relevant in this decade or are we back to the old pre-Cold War era realism? From Trump’s tariff and comments
on countries like Greenland and Canada to China’s “cheque cum debt” diplomacy in our region to the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars and the recent Indo-Pak crisis, all these events have triggered a need for a curious academic interpretation of the contemporary global situations.

Conceptual understanding of Realism, Neo-Realism, Liberalism and Neo-Liberal Institutionalism

Realism views international interactions, which themselves are colossal and bewilderingly complex, from the perspectives of an intense political struggle for power. The theory perceives individuals and states as primarily selfish and power-seeking. The states are also perceived as unitary actors in the pursuit of their national interest, which unavoidably traps them into an anarchic situation. As such, the realists view the international system, which itself constitutes a set of rules structured according to some established rules and patterns of international interactions, as anarchic in nature; and consequently, they see the need for the management of insecurity, which arises out of the anarchic system. The Realists are known advocates of rationality in decision-making and rely primarily on balance of power and deterrence to keep the international system intact and as non-threatening as possible. According to Bell, “Realism is a set of related theories of international relations that emphasizes the role of the state, national interest, and military power in world politics.” Realism, just like any other theory, is a construct of a variety of dispositions by various philosophers, both classical and contemporary. As such, it is widely divided into two major categories, i.e., classical realism and a series of contemporary reinterpretations of the theory, the most popular among which is structural realism. While Classical Realism is a product of ancient philosophical traditions, the recent reinterpretations of Realism, including Structural Realism, are recent developments that became
widely known during the 20th century. Some important scholars who laid the foundation for classical
realism’s most important figures were E.H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau.

However, in 1979, a new impetus was given to the theory by the rise of a popular reinterpretation of realism termed structural or neo-realism, championed and delineated by Kenneth Waltz. Generally, the neo-realists see the international system structure as the most important unit to study rather than the individual (state), who is labeled to be selfish and power-seeking. This structure, the neo-realists argued, is determined by the ordering principle, viz., the absence of overarching authority, and the distribution of capabilities among states. The neo-realists believe that those capabilities define a state’s position in the system. The balance of power among nations, which they believe is largely determined by the structure of the international system (unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar, as the case maybe) is one of their core principles.

On the other hand, institutionalism, or neo-liberal constitutionalism, is more of a later and pragmatic
manifestation of a broader political theory called liberalism, and the very core of this ideology in IR is
cooperation between states, which is achieved through international institutions such as the U.N., QUAD, or SAARC. As one of the oldest political philosophies, liberalism has its roots in the abstract concept of idealism. From John Locke’s “life, liberty, and property” to Kantian’s human beings as “end in themselves” to Bentham’s utilitarian principle of “greatest happiness of the greatest number,” liberalism has dominated the philosophical sphere for centuries and continues to do so to this very day. In contrast to realism, which rose as a criticism of liberalism during the late 19th century, liberals propagate few core principles. They argue that human beings are perfectible and primary actors are international actors; relations between states can be based on cooperation rather than confrontation, and liberals also give less importance to military than to socio-economic, environmental, and technological factors. Using the theory of Locke, liberals argue that state interests are both “self-regarding and other-regarding,” i.e., state interests are dynamic as they keep aligning with the ever-changing human needs. But as time progressed post-WWII, even the most optimistic liberals started becoming skeptical towards human nature, giving rise to neoliberalism. Simply put, neoliberals are not as cynical as classical realists but also not as optimistic as traditional liberals about human nature and cooperation between states.

Historical Evolution, Classical and Modern Thinkers

A. Realism—Indian cum Western philosophical foundation

The foundations of this school of thought can be traced back from the period of antiquity to the modern
period with the works of the renowned realists of the world. From Kautilya and Sun Tzu in the Eastern world to Thucydides and Machiavelli in the Western world. As remarked by Roger Boesche, “Kautilya is actually the first great political realist,” and his Arthashastra (4th century BCE) has provided the base for Indian realism with his groundbreaking theories on political realism. He introduced the Saptanga theory, where he emphasized the culmination of seven factors (prakritis) constituting the power of the state. His Mandala theory identified the relations of a kingdom with its neighbors to identify who is a friend or enemy. He has created the base of the present foreign policies with the four elements (or four circles): Vijishu (king), Ari (the immediate neighbor), Udasina (neutral neighbor), and Madhyama (another neutral neighbor). Lastly, his Shadgunya concept provided a firm foundation for the foreign policy, giving a state six options to navigate trivial matters. He includes Sandhi, or peace; Vigraha, or war; Asana, or neutrality; Yana, or war preparation; Samshrya, or alliance building; and Dvadibhava, or diplomatic double game, after assessing the position of your neighbors. This idea was pursued in Sun Tzu’s Art of War as well, which was written around 512 BC. It highlighted the complex relationships of conflicts, power, and security in the daily life of humans. He offers different combat styles to navigate through every kind of warlike situation, making his work a perfect example of military realism as well. In his work “The History of the Peloponnesian War,” written around the 5th century BCE, Thucydides shared his perspective on the causes of the war, power play, and politics. Later in the Melian dialogue, he quoted that “the strong can do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

The power over morality is the core idea of his principle, which later on was followed by Niccolò Machiavelli in his work “The Prince.” He remarked that “it is a very natural and ordinary thing to desire to acquire, and always, when men do it who can, they will be praised or not blamed.” According to him, the threats from your surroundings are inevitable. A state may denounce expansion, but the circumstances will make it do the opposite. His state policy surrounds ensuring the survival and longevity of the state, which is regulated by power, and everything else is secondary to him. He asserts that “the end justifies the means,” which claims that illegal acts are justifiable if they maintain the virtues of the state. Lastly, the contributions of Thomas Hobbes in his work, Leviathan, where he explained human nature and the anarchical state. His thought of “war of all against all” in the “state of nature” suggested that he believed it was the fear factor of human nature that compelled them to surrender to the sovereign. He views the sovereign power through a social contract where people consciously denounce their power to a sovereign ruler for the sake of security and maintenance of order.

B. Institutionalism – From a Kantian idealist thought to post-war necessity
Early conceptual foundations were established by thinkers like Immanuel Kant, who argued in his article Perpetual Peace (1795) that a federation of states was required to maintain peace through the rule of law and republican governance (Kant, 1795/2006). Hugo Grotius and Jean-Jacques Rousseau also highlighted the importance of norms and the rule of law in controlling international affairs. However, the advent of legal positivism and the first International organizations, such as the Universal Postal Union (1874) and the International Telegraph Union (1865), which were forerunners of contemporary IOs, marked the formal emergence of the institutionalist tradition in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

A major turning point that led to a boom in international institutional thought was World War I. Woodrow Wilson, the president of the United States, promoted the notion that liberal institutional arrangements could facilitate international cooperation. The League of Nations, created in 1920 by the Treaty of Versailles, was the realization of his vision. The League was the first attempt at a worldwide intergovernmental organization with the goals of disarmament, collective security, and peaceful dispute resolution in order to prevent war.The League formalized the notion that international peace and cooperation required legally binding agreements and mutual accountability, marking a turning point in institutionalism even though it ultimately failed to stop World War II.

Institutional frameworks were re-examined in light of the destruction caused by World War II and the League’s failure. In order to provide a stronger framework for international cooperation, the United Nations (UN) was founded in 1945. Neoliberal institutionalism, which was linked to academicians like Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane, emerged during this time. In contrast to classical liberalism, neoliberal institutionalismplaced more emphasis on the function of institutions in reducing, rather than eradicating, anarchy in the global system. Even without a central authority, institutions were thought to provide information, lower transaction costs, and create norms that made cooperation logical.

International Conventions, Charters and Law

Various international conventions, charters, and United Nations (UN) articles embody elements of both
theories, reflecting the complex interplay between cooperative ideals and power politics.

A. Institutionalism: Legal Foundations for Cooperation

Institutionalism posits that international institutions and legal norms facilitate cooperation among states, even in an anarchic international system. The UN Charter is a cornerstone document that encapsulates institutionalist principles:

• Article 1(1): Outlines the UN’s purpose to maintain international peace and security through collective
measures.
• Article 1(3): Emphasizes international cooperation in solving global issues and promoting human rights.
• Article 55(c): Advocates for universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
These provisions underscore the UN’s commitment to institutional mechanisms for global governance.

The establishment of bodies like the International Court of Justice and the Economic and Social Council further institutionalizes these ideals. Beyond the UN Charter, several international conventions reinforce institutionalist ideals:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Embeds human rights within international legal frameworks.
• Geneva Conventions: Establish standards for humanitarian treatment in war.

• World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements: Promote cooperation and dispute resolution in
international trade.

B. Realism: Legal Acknowledgment of Power Politics

Realism centers on the notion that states operate in an anarchic international system, prioritizing national interests and security. While seemingly at odds with institutionalism, certain UN Charter provisions acknowledge the realist perspective:

• Article 2(4): Prohibits the threat or use of force, yet reflects recognition of power dynamics.
• Article 51: Affirms the right of individual or collective self-defense.

These articles illustrate the UN’s accommodation of realist considerations. Realist thought also finds
resonance in the practice of international relations, such as the Security Council veto power and selective interventions aligned with national interests.

The Global South’s Economic Marginalization amid the decline of Institutionalism
“The countries of the Global South have continued to be marginalized and remain underrepresented on
numerous fronts, including global socioeconomic development, climate mitigation efforts, education, health, and infrastructure development.”
— António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, General Assembly, September 2024

The main weakness of mainstream Western IR theories is that they are not universally experienced as
mainstream. The concepts they are based on do not unequivocally reflect or match the reality in many Global South states. Realist scholarship refers to the Cold War as a period of relative stability given that no major war was fought between the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. However, if one looks at the same period through a Global South lens, one can see a world full of proxy wars and human suffering where both superpowers intervened in conflicts to support their interests or damage those of the other. Dependency theory asserts that underdevelopment and poverty are the result of political, economic, and cultural influences exerted on such countries from the outside. It presents the relationship between the Global South and the Global North as exploitative and unfair.

The multilateral institutions are not structured to prioritize non-Western-centric paradigms. This discrepancy is exacerbated by the enduring legacy of colonialism in its various forms. Economically, numerous instances demonstrate how externally imposed macroeconomic policies have deleterious effects on developing countries, leading to economic turmoil that undermines political stability and state-building efforts. Security concerns further underscore these disparities, as evidenced by the calls from African nations for the withdrawal of UN peacekeeping operations. Countries like Mali, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo has voiced adamant opposition to Security Council mandates, citing perceived impositions without a clear exit strategy.

The World Social Report 2020 provides an in-depth analysis of the inequalities that persist within and
between countries. Despite the era of unprecedented economic growth, vast disparities in wealth, power, and opportunities remain. The poorest countries, many of which are located in the Global South, are the most vulnerable to both the immediate and long-term effects of these inequalities. This report examines how rapid technological and social changes have exacerbated divides, particularly in terms of access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. Inequality hampers the progress of millions of people, particularly in the Global South, and undermines efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Africa’s Pragmatic Approach in the Contemporary World Order
Post-independence African diplomacy initially leaned toward institutionalism, driven by Pan-African ideals and a collective desire to overcome colonial fragmentation. Institutions like the African Union (AU), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) emerged as expressions of this vision, aiming to foster economic integration, conflict resolution, and collective bargaining in global politics.

In practice, however, many African states now adopt selective institutionalism, engaging regional bodies when convenient but resorting to bilateral or unilateral strategies when national interests are at stake. For instance, while the African Continental Free Trade Area (AFCFTA) promises to boost intra-African trade, its implementation has been slow due to individual states reluctance to open markets or relinquish control. In security, the AU’s Peace and Security Council often struggles to intervene decisively without the consent and financing of powerful member states, highlighting the realist priority of sovereignty. Simultaneously, global actors like China, the U.S., and Russia exploit this shift, offering direct investment and military aid in exchange for political allegiance, bypassing multilateral institutions. This reflects a broader trend where states increasingly act within a realist framework, prioritizing bilateral diplomacy and resource gains over institutional commitments.

Impact on Healthcare in Africa amid Realist Tendencies by First World Countries
The recent Donald Trump executive order issued on the 20th of January 2025 to pause all foreign aid for 90days triggered a significant disruption in global health systems. This directive reportedly slashed over 80% of USAID-funded programs, including critical initiatives targeting tuberculosis (TB), HIV/AIDS, food security, and humanitarian assistance. In Africa, where many countries rely heavily on foreign aid to sustain public health systems, the immediate withdrawal of USAID and PEPFAR support has led to staff layoffs, reductions in health services, and delays in the procurement of essential medicines and diagnostics. These developments illustrate a broader shift in international policy, one rooted in the realist perspective of international relations, which prioritizes national interest and self-preservation over cooperative global engagement. As realism gains ground in global politics, its consequences are increasingly visible in the erosion of health infrastructures across aid dependent regions like Africa, raising urgent questions about the rise of realism over institutionalism.

Allocating approximately 37% of the 4 billion dollars of available funding, the US has been the largest
foreign donor for Africa. Not only the most popular disruption of HIV/AIDS and TB programs was affected, but maternal child health and reproductive health services will be affected. This is particularly concerning as efforts made over the last decade to reduce the global burden will be significantly undermined, especially in Africa and Asia. Further looking at the 44 million deaths from malaria since 2000, this drawback of international funds on Africa will pose about a 20% decrease in progress.

The Global Rise towards Realism and its Analysis in the Contemporary 21st Century

The international order has undergone a significant change with the return of realist foreign policy to
American politics. This shift has been expedited by President Trump’s return to office, as his administration has prioritized narrowly defined national interests over international institutional commitments. More than just economic protectionism, the imposition of historic 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports and higher duties on Chinese goods represents a fundamental revaluation of America’s place in the world.

America’s recent threats to leave the World Trade Organization and its disengagement from international organizations like the World Health Organization are the clearest examples of this realist shift. Similar trends can be seen in the growing hostilities with the International Criminal Court, the waning support for NATO, and the Paris Climate Agreement. This approach’s philosophical underpinnings are consistent with classical realism’s focus on state power, self-interest, and skepticism of idealistic international frameworks.

This change is significant because it originates from the country that created the liberal order after the war. For many years, American institutions and power promoted stability and furthered American objectives. The present retreat implies that these institutions no longer support America’s fundamental national interests or, worse, that they limit rather than increase American power. Critics contend that this method fails to recognize the ways in which institutions have historically increased American power. The benefits of globalization, according to its proponents, have been distributed unequally, benefiting competitors like China and elites while leaving many Americans behind. This shift towards direct transactional relationships is further evidenced by the recent emergence of new bilateral security agreements outside of conventional alliance structures.

This recalibration of realism is not exclusive to America. Similar nationalist movements that challenge
international Cooperation and multilateralism have gained traction around the world. It is evident that the post-Cold War consensus on Liberal institutionalism is breaking down. The difficulties of upholding
international cooperation within a realist framework are highlighted by the emergence of sovereignty
disputes in the South China Sea as well as tensions over digital governance and AI regulation. The conflict between institutional commitments and realist impulses will continue to shape America’s foreign policy as it traverses this terrain, ultimately reshaping the global order.

Moving Forward—Choosing Eclecticism over stubbornness in Diplomacy

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine exemplifies the intersection of institutionalism and realism.Adopted at the 2005 World Summit, R2P asserts that states have a duty to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If a state fails in this duty, the international community, through the UN, has the responsibility to intervene. While rooted in institutionalist ideals of collective responsibility, R2P also embodies realist elements by acknowledging the necessity of coercive measures, including military intervention.

References:
– Hoffmann, Stanley. 1988. The Political Ethics of International Relations. New York: Carnegie
Council on Ethics and International Affairs. 

– Research Scholar, S., C Mishra, S. (2020). Kautilya as a realist thinker [Journal-article]. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 6(3), 110–112.https://www.socialsciencejournal.in/assets/archives/2020/vol6issue3/6-2-21- 687.pdf

 – Gray, S. (2014). Reexamining Kautilya and Machiavelli: Flexibility and the Problem of Legitimacy in
Brahmanical and Secular Realism. Political Theory, 42(6), 635–657. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24571522

– Forde, S. (1992). Varieties of Realism: Thucydides and Machiavelli. The Journal of Politics, 54(2), 372
393. https://doi.org/10.2307/2132031

-Sun Tzu’s The Art of War through the Prism of Political Realism. (2018, January 19). Economic
andPolitical Weekly. Retrieved May 6, 2025, from https://www.epw.in/journal/2018/2/perspectives/sun tzus-art-war-through-prism political-realism.html

– Williams, M. C. (1996). Hobbes and International Relations: A Reconsideration. International
Organization, 50(2), 213–236. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2704077

– Acharya, A. (2017, November 19). Global South perspectives on international relations theory. E
International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2017/11/19/global-south-perspectives-on-international
relations-theory/

– Institute for Policy, Advocacy, and Governance. (2023, September 8). Democracy, good governance,
and multilateralism: The missing North-South connect. https://www.ipag.org/policy/democracy-good
governance-and-multilateralism-the-missing-north-south-connect/

– United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2020). World social report 2020:
Inequality in a rapidly changing world. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/world-social
report/2020.html

– Adetula, V. A. O., Bereketeab, R., & Jaiyebo, O. (2016). Regional Economic Communities and
Peacebuilding in Africa: The Experiences of ECOWAS and IGAD (Policy Dialogue No. 12).
Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
https://www.academia.edu/111507294/Regional_Economic_Communities_and_Peacebuilding_in_Af
rica The_Experiences_of_ECOWAS_and_IGAD

-UNECA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa). (2020). Creating a unified regional
market: Towards the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area in East Africa.
UNECA. https://archive.uneca.org/sites/default/files/PublicationFiles/tmea – AFCFTA
report_5_june_2020.pdf

-Kant, I. (2006). Perpetual Peace. Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1795).
https://www.hackettpublishing.com/perpetual-peace

-Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy.
Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691022284/after
hegemony

-Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The false promise of international institutions. International Security,
19(3), 5–49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539078

-Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political
Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011

-Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764

-Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change.
International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789

-Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global
Politics. Cornell University Press.https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801488235/rules–for-the-world/ 

-United Nations. (1945). Charter of https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text the United Nations.

-United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments- mechanisms/instruments/international-cove nant-civil
and-political-rights

-International Committee of the Red Cross. (1949). Geneva Conventions.
https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties- customary-law/geneva-conventions

-Park, S. (2010). The World Bank and Environmental Politics: The Case of the Chad Cameroon Pipeline.
Manchester University Press.

-United Nations. (2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome.
https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/
docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf

-Acharya, A. (2017, November 19). Global South Perspectives on International Relations Theory. E
International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2017/11/19/global-south-perspectives on-international
relations-theory/

-United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (2020). World Social
Report 2020: Inequality in a rapidly changing world. United Nations.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/02/World Social
Report2020-FullReport.pdf

-IPAG. (2023, September 8). Democracy, good governance, and multilateralism: The missing North
South connect. Institute for Policy, Advocacy, and Governance. https://www.ipag.org/policy/democracy
good-governance-and-multilateralism-the-
missing north-south-connect/