With attempts will collapse with war being the

With a specific end of goal to clarify the relationship
between nation states, I must use the concept of human nature. This essay will
be focused on classical realism and liberal presumptions of human instinct and
from these philosophies, I will illustrate how nation states classify their
relations with each other. Human nature is the psychological and social
elements that defines humanity, specially in comparison with other living
things. The society you grew up in will pass on its precise ideas about what
makes humans ‘human.’ Nation state is normally called a country, nation or
state. (Khan, 1992. p.197-234). But as a matter of fact, it is an exact form of
sovereign state, to be precise ‘a political substance on a domain’ that is
protected by a country ‘a social entity’, and which collects its authenticity
from a prosperous serving citizens.


Having a feeling of war and peace is normally ranked
under human nature yet a few philosophers trust that battling and brutal acts
are expected to being genetic in individuals from heredity, while others
disagree with this concept. These beliefs have an enormous impact in our lives
as it determines if it is entrenched that war is significant in our lives or if
it is accepted that humans can beat the nonstop condition of war.


Classical Realism and Human Nature:  

Classical realism all began with ‘Thucydides’
description of power politics as a law of human conduct. Theories about human
instinct play a significant role in classical realism. According to classical
realist, a crucial aspect of human instinct must be the desire of nation states
for power and sovereignty. Classical realists have a negative perspective of
human instinct where they think chaos wins in the international system. (Lebow,
2010, p. 59). Hardship is a key element of classical realism’s analysis.
Classical realist, like Greek tragedians, examine history to be patterned and keeping
in mind to maintain request and peace might be effective for the time being, in
the long-term, those attempts will collapse with war being the inevitable
result. They consider humans as being probably ‘terrible’ as they can be
egotistical and power seeking. States are being examined to be allegorically
being the same as humans, hence being intelligent of human instinct.


Anarchy has demonstrated better because there is no
grasping fundamental authority over the sovereign states that could impose the
law and discipline those conflicting against it says Realists.  The activities of human beings are often
viewed as vicious preparatory. League of nations would be a fundamental global
expert; however, they were low at having the capacity to authorize an agreement
of law and military. This is said because of states placing power and
self-concern in advance to morality, surrendering their sovereign power to an
international body is not what they will do, according to Classical realists.
(Kegley and Blanton, 2014, p. 26).


The characteristics of human instinct of the states and
self-serving conduct is assumed to be only an idea. According to (Rathburn,
2012, p. 611), “Achievement and selfishness is one motivation behind why
morality cannot be relied upon to play a role in relations surrounded by
states”. Human instinct in general clarifies to realists, why international
politics is fundamentally control politics. Thomas Hobbes set up his approach
of a completely disarranged state of nature as the adverse of a fully requested
political state, directed by a sovereign power. (Hull, 2009, p. 88). A
controversy was brought up by classical realists that appearances of human
instincts are noticeable in global politics, for instance, rivalry and fear.
Morganthau illustrates that politics, similar to society as a rule, is led by
open-minded laws that have their background in human instinct. (Morgenthau,
1948). He additionally expresses that even though a man has the ethical
privilege to forfeit themselves for the ‘defense of freedom’, the state does
not have the privilege to place fair contemplations for the ‘defense of
freedom’ above powerful political activities.


Written by