The realist critique of the International Society appraoch rests on a deep scepticism that there is an 'international society' as Hedley Bull characterizes it:
a group of states that 'conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions.
Realists believe that states are bound only by their own national interests. Where is the evidence, realists ask, that states are also 'bound by certain rules...
that they should respect one another's claims to independence, that they should honour agreements into which they enter, and that they should be subject to certain limitations in exercising force against one another'? Realists are sceptical that states really behave that way.
States may respect such rules, but only because it is in their interest to do so. If it is not deemed to be in their interest they are not likely to respect them.
Realists, thus, see states as being bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another as long as there is an advantage in doing that.
When there is conflict between international obligations and national interests the latter will always win, because the fundamental concern of states is always their own advantage and ultimately their security and survival. That is the concern that guides foreign policy.
International Society approach is associated with:
