THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

Gasimov Sayavush
BAAU
Baku, Azerbaijan
E-mail: sayavushgasimov@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
This article aims to analyze the concept of the national interest from different points of view; thus, it
can be defined as an endeavor towards the nature of the national interest. In the article will be analyzed the
national interest understandings of these different positions in the light of five IR theories: Realism, Liberalism,
Constructivism, Marxism and Critical Theory.
Key Words: national interest, realism, liberalism, constructivism, idealism.
INTRODUCTION
Without ignoring the relationship between the perspective and the knowledge about the nature of truth,
it can be claimed that there is no point in insisting on only one definition of the national interest. On the
contrary, every actor in the society will understand the concept in relation with its position in the system. This
article aims to investigate the national interest understandings of these different positions in the society in the
light of five IR theories: Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, Marxism and Critical Theory.
At first, we will analyze realistic approach to the national interest. Realism is widely regarded as the
most influential theoretical tradition in International Relations, even by its harshest critics. Hans J. Morgenthau
is the most important representative of the 'realist' school in the discipline of international politics. He can be
regarded as one of the most significant pioneers of the modern form of the classical realism. For Morgenthau,
there is no escape from power which is ubiquitous in every aspect of life and the concept of interest is defined
in terms of power. Thus, power politics can be used as another name for Morgenthaus realism.
Morgenthau argues that interest is the perennial standard by which political action must be judged and
directed because the objective of foreign policy must be defined in terms of the national interest
(Morgenthau 1985: 9 and 528). Although he recognized that at any particular point in time the interest of a
nation should be informed by the political and cultural context within which foreign policy formulated,
defining interest in terms of power would largely overcome the problem of subjectivity (Morgenthau 1985: 9
and 528). The relative power of nation-states can be assessed and measured, and is therefore an important
objective reality. The national interest is normally defined in terms of strategic and economic capability because
international politics is seen primarily as a struggle for power between states. However, Morgenthau concedes
that the definition of power will change over time: on some occasions economic power will be crucial, at other
times military or cultural power will be decisive.
Although morality cannot be the basis of forming national interests, Morgenthau refers to the moral
dignity of the national interest, implying that at the very least the term is morally defensible guide to foreign
policy formulation (Morgenthau 1951: 33). However he emphasizes over and over, the detachment of the
national interest from political and ethical perspectives: The national interest of great powers and in good
measure the methods by which it is to be secured are impervious to ideological and institutional changes
(Morgenthau 1962: 199).
Kenneth Waltz parts company with what he calls the traditional realism of Morgenthau by arguing
that international politics can be thought of a system with a precisely defined structure. Traditional or classical
realism, in his view, is unable to conceptualize the international system in this way because it is limited by its
behavioral methodology which explains political systems. According to this approach, the characteristics and
the interactions of behavioral units are taken to be the direct cause of political events (Waltz 1990: 33).
Waltz has a different conception of the national interest to Morgenthau. Like most foreign policy, he
regards the national interest as a product of the structure of the international system rather than something which
is the personal responsibility and management of political leaders. According to Jackson and Sorensen:
For classical realists the national interest is the basic guide of responsible foreign policy: it is a moral
idea that must be defended and promoted by state leaders. For Waltz, however, the national interest seems to
operate like an automatic signal commanding state leaders when and where to move. The difference here is:
Morgenthau believes that state leaders are duty bound to conduct their foreign policies by reference to the
guidelines laid down by the national interest, and they may be condemned for failing to do that. Waltz`s
neorealist theory hypothesizes that they will always do that more or less automatically. Morgenthau thus sees
states as organizations guided by leaders whose foreign policies are successful or unsuccessful, depending on

the astuteness and wisdom of their decisions. Waltz sees states as structures that respond to the impersonal
constraints and dictates of the international system (Burchill 2005: 43).
According to Waltz, the statesman is not an actor with high agential power to change or regulate the
international structure as he wishes because of the systemic constraints imposed on him. These systemic
constraints are the anarchy, the distribution of capabilities and functional similarity. Three imperatives proposed
by Waltz can be regarded as constituting the breaking point between Morgenthaus modern form of realism and
neo-realism. They are the systemic imperatives rather than being deliberative products of the statesman. That
means the statesman must take these systemic constraints into consideration when he is on the threshold of
taking significant decisions related to the interests of his country. In the light of these knowledge about the neorealist strand, it is argued that its national interest understanding is system-centric rather agent-centric. The state
is still the most important actor; but it operates under the conditions of anarchy and must obey the competitive
logic of the system, acting in line with the systemic signals in order to ensure its survival. Neo-realism argues
that the state must adapt itself to the anarchical international system in order to fulfill its national interests. If the
state ignores the systemic constraints and the competitive nature of politics, it can be punished because the
system demands uniform behavioral patterns. Thus, the national interest of the state, for neo-realism, can be
described as to adapt to the international structure and defend its position in the system.
Liberalism is one of the main schools of international relations theory. There will be analyzed the
national interest understandings in the liberal thought of three schools (Liberal internationalism, idealist school,
(neo) liberal institutionalism).
The interest conception of liberal internationalism is defined as the community interest. The
community here signifies the context composed of the liberal democratic states. Defending democracy and free
trade, liberal internationalism is more inclined to believe in the potential goodness of individuals than realism.
For the liberal internationalists, it is not because of the human nature the world is in a miserable situation; but it
is because of the undemocratic states, which distort the harmony of the world. Thus, the internationalists advise
free trade and the spread of democracy in order to improve the conditions of all the humanity and to create a
community of liberal democratic states.
Idealism, regarded a variant of liberalism, is much more state-centric than liberal internationalism
because it analyses the world politics more at the state level than at the individual level. As will be seen, for the
liberal internationalists, the individual is prior to the state. On the contrary, the idealists do not aim to transcend
the state. The solutions idealism has proposed to regulate the world events show its state-centric characteristics.
The League of Nations, the collective security system and the national self-determination are evident signs of
the statism of the idealist thought. The national interest understanding of idealism is state-centric like realism;
but it is more prone to prevent hostility among states by creating international institutions than to accept the
competition and conflict as the permanent features of the international politics.
The institutionalists see the international environment as anarchical like the neo-realists; but they differ
with regard to their approaches to cooperation among states. For the neo-realists, international cooperation is
not much possible, while the (neo) liberals insist that cooperation can be achieved by means of creating
international regimes. Because of the institutionalism emphasis on cooperation, its national interest
understanding will be constructed in reference to the notion of cooperation under the heading of the cooperative
interest.
The constructivist thought, for the sake of analysis, is divided into three subgroups: state-centric
constructivism, international society-centric constructivism and critical constructivism.
The first strand called as state-centric constructivism borrows many concepts from realism. Thus, there
is a relationship between state-centric constructivism and realism. State-centric version of constructivism
analyses anarchy and investigates the ways for collective identity formation among states. Although it claims
that the identities and interests of states are defined in inter subjective manner, it still takes some features of the
state as fixed. For example, the states interests are said to be constructed in accordance with inter subjective
constraints, but these interests represent subjective preferences. In addition to these subjective interests, there
are also objective interests, which all states must fulfill in order to survive. The distinction the state-centric
constructivism makes between the subjective and the objective interests may cause to think of it as a bridge
between neo realism and neo liberalism.
The second variant of constructivism called as international society-centric constructivism claims that
the normative structure of international politics has a constraining effect on state behavior and determines its
interests. According to this view, which is influenced from the English School, the structure of international
society has two tiers: normative and surface. The first represents the dominant norms in the international society
and the second tier is thought to consist of international organizations, which are practical agents, which teach
states about the validity and influence of international norms. For the society-centric version of constructivism,
the state is a normative-adaptive entity and its national interests are inevitably norm-bound.
The last variant is critical constructivism, which tries to deconstruct the constructed character of
politics. For this variant, the state is not the representative of the society and not a subject which naturally has

some interests and identities. Rather, the states well-being depends on the success of its ideological hegemony
over its citizens. The state, in that sense, is an apparatus of repression constructing itself on the exclusion of
some groups and individuals in the society. For critical constructivism, the state cannot have pre-given
(national) interests and identities. Being interested in the construction process of the national interest only as a
discourse, the critical constructivists see the national interest as a subjective preference and regard it the
reflection of the dominant discourse in the society.
Marxism and its national interest understanding; it transforms the national interest into the socialist
interest because Marxism analyses the politics with regard to the notion of class. For Marxism, nationalism is an
invention required to meet the demands of the capitalist market. Thus, the territorial body of the state refers to
its commercial capacity while its borders are its tariff walls. Ideology is seen as the dominant discourse of the
dominant class in the society. Hegemony is described as the leading capacity of the dominant class to gain the
consent of the subordinated people in the society in order to reproduce its legitimacy in the eyes of the
oppressed people.
The imperialism theory of Lenin and the world-system theory of Wallerstein are analyzed in the light
of which the concept of the socialist interest is constructed. According to Lenins theory of imperialism, the
world does not have a linear progress; rather, some states will improve its well-being by exploiting some other
weak states. Thus, there arises a disproportional relationship between the centre and the periphery, as
Wallerstein argues.
In the critical thought the national interest is also transformed and has become the humanitys interest.
The humanitys interest implies a longing for an alternative world order and is composed of two realms. The
first one is related to the cosmopolitan level and the other is related to the intra-state level. The concept is
developed by means of the dialectical relationship between these two levels. The humanitys interest is not a
concept that was developed before by any critical theorist in an explicit manner. Rather, it is an eclectic concept
developed in the light of the critical arguments. The cosmopolitan level can be seen as a general common
denominator on which all the critical theorists can come to agreement. Respect for the difference and the
transcendence of the nation-state are the two objectives of this level. The intra-state level is related to more
concrete actions within states. It implies that if the internal structures of states acquire democratic features, the
world of states will also be democratic.
The result is pluralistic because there is not any consensus among the theories about the content of the
national interest. That is inevitable because each theory approaches the concept and analyses it with regard to its
own framework. However, the national interest will continue to feature in the political discourse of states
because it has important subjective utility.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Burchill, S (2005) The National Interest in International Relations Theory. New York.
Clinton, W. D. (1974) The two Faces of National Interest. Baton Rouge.
Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and International Relations. Cambridge.
Frankel, J. (1970) National Interest. London.
Haas, E.B. (1953) Dynamics of International Relations. New York.
Halliday, F. (1994) Rethinking International Relations. Basingstoke.
Hobson, John M. (2000) The State and Internationals Relations. Cambridge.
Hoffman, S. (1995) The Crises of Liberal Internationalism, Foreign Policy, 98.
Kubalkova, V and Cruickshank, A. A. (1980) Marxism-Leninism and the Theory of International
Relations. Oxford.
Linklater, A. (ed.) (2000) International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science: Volume II.
London.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1951) In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American
Foreign Policy. New York.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1962) Negotiations or War? The New Republic, 3 November.
Morgenthau, H.J.(1985) Politics Among Nations. New York.
Waltz, K.N. (1990) Realist Thought and NeoRealist Theory, Journal of International affairs, 44, pp.
21-37.