No FundamentalityAre international relations characterized by a fundamental harmony, or clash, of interests?(word count: 2016)In the time of ancient Greece, Thucydides stated that "identity of interest is the surest bonds whether between states or individuals." (Morgenthau, 8) Throughout history, many theorists of International Relations (IR) attempted to define the fundamental nature of International Politics based on the mutuality of interests. This essay is intended to focus on various discussions of realism in mid-20th century along with liberal perspectives in order to determine how each school of thought answered whether there is a fundamental harmony or clash of interests in IR and what determinants brought them come to such conclusions. To this end, this essay will argue that neither harmony nor clash of interests 'fundamentally' exists in IR, but the relative nature of issues and a particular paradigm of power at that particular time influence the actors in international politumstances and power shifts. Therefore, according to Carr's view, these reshaped moralities defined nothing to be deterministic. Carr recognized that ethics and power are relative to each other and claimed that harmony of interests is nothing but an illusion.Based on Carr's denial, Hans Morgenthau intensified the support for 'the interests in conflict.' He believed in the fundamental clash of interests and was not apologetic about it at all. Morgenthau's six principles of realism mostly were in agreement with the themes of his colleagues, but he thought that the IR is based on the clash of interests because the self-interests and lust for power are the fundamental forces of human nature (Morgenthau, 6). Morgenthau also persisted that political sphere should have its own autonomy because its rules of the game should be defined in terms of power. Therefore, in his point of view, it was pointless to make an ethical judgment on the use of violence to earn national interests. It was the hardt of cooperative regimes and regional integration, especially in the field of economies among western countries. The IMF, GATT/WTO, APEC, NAFTA and the EU are such examples while the UN has introduced cooperation in the matter of high-politics. NATO, a traditional alliance system, even transformed itself into a broader cooperative body. It seems that all these historical developments support the liberalist argument for the harmony of interests in IR.However, before celebrating liberal achievements, one should look at the other side of coin that returns to realist discussions. For instance, a 'spill-over' effect, stressed by neo-functionalists like Hass, only goes so far. It is true that fast and effective cooperation can occur in economic and social spheres, but less so in politics. In fact, each state still jealously defends its own power status by blocking any attempt to interfere with its own domestic sovereignty. The two major issues for political integration of the EU are a collec up a regime change of Iraq for securing their own route to oil. Like this example, the traditional allies can form a serious division according to different nature of issues.This essay has been looked to different discussions on the fundamental harmony or clash of interests in IR. While realists supported the conflicting nature of international affairs and focused on a power-based political autonomy, liberals discussed the development of cooperation in low-politics and a harmony of interests through international institutions and regional integration. However, as one observes the recent developments in international affairs, it seems that a harmony and a clash of interests exist in parallel according to the relativity of issues and power status of actors. All these discussions and examples illustrate the hardships in proving the fundamental existence of harmony or clash of interests, but they are still worth to look further to understand the true nature of IR.투시디데스는 일찍이 이익의 정체는 인간과 사회통적 현실주의가 Marx나 Hitler의 belief in historical mission 처럼 deterministic aspects of historical process 에 너무 집착할 수 있다고 지적하며, Intellectual theories and ethical standards are the products of circumstances and interests and weapons framed for the furtherance of interests 란걸 강조한다. 국제관계에서는 권력의 움직임에 따라 상대적이고 실용적인 morality shaping이 이루어진다고 얘기하는 카에 관점에서 볼 때, 바뀌어지는 도덕적 관점에 따라 이익의 조화나 충돌 역시 당시의 상황과 issue의 성격, 그리고 power paradigm에 의해 이루어진다는 결론을 내릴 수 있겠다. 실제로 Carr는 이익의 조화가 자연적으로 존재한다는 사실은 부인했지만 그것이 국제관계의 목적이 되는 것은 가능하다는 뉘앙스를 풍겼다. 그는 도덕성과 권력을 병렬시키고 두 가지 요소 모두 상대적이라는 점을 강조했다.한스 모겐소는 카의 현실주의 관점을 더욱 구체화시킨다. 모겐소 역시 국제관계에서 이익의 조화가 자연적으로 존재한다는 가정에는 반대하지만, 그는 본질적으로 이익은 서로 충돌한다고 믿으며, 그에 대해 전혀 apologetic하지 않은 태도를 취하고 있다. 모겐소의 6가지 현실주의 원칙은 상당부분, 특히 권력 중심의 국제관계 구조, 권력의 가변성, 정치적 행위의 도덕적 중요성과 국가이익의 요구 사이의 긴장감의 인정, 특정 국가의 도덕적 열망과 세계를 지배하는 도덕적 법칙의 불일치 등에서 앞선 현실주의 이론가들의 의견을 체계적으로 확립시키고 있지만, 모겐소는 정치의 근본 성격은 인간 본성에서 기인한다고 생각하고 있으며 그러한 인간 본성의 성질에 따라 국제관계는 근본적으로 이익의 충돌에 기초해 있다고 정의한다.모겐소는 이익의 충돌에 기초한 국제관계와 그 정치적 영역의 자율성을 인정해야인다.
![[영작] 국제관계의 특성과 본질: 현실주의를 중심으로](https://image4.happycampus.com/Production/thumbnail/2003/03/11/data1188572-0001.jpg)
