The role of the national interest in international relations is critical. We can’t dismiss it if we want to understand how States interact on the global stage. That’s what we’re discussing here.
Today, I want to speak to you about national interest and international relations. This topic has real practical implications, and it’s decisive to interpret the way world affairs work. For this reason, it’s fundamental to analyze it in the broader context of the interactions between countries. Although we discussed its meaning on another occasion, here we will take a look at its role in global politics.
Even if we go over some aspects already mentioned there, that will be justified by the specific perspective of our discussion today. In that way, we will shed light to outline a different dimension of this concept. It will allow us to understand how politics works in the international sphere.
I know it might sound a bit biased. Still, the truth is that realist authors have resorted systematically to this concept to interpret international relations. And they have done it successfully. The reason is quite evident. They put this concept in the middle of their theory, and it became the cornerstone that underpins the theoretical structure of this school of thought.
It doesn’t mean that this concept may be interpreted in a different way, such as from a cultural or ideological standpoint. However, what matters here is the way it works in the international sphere, and how States consider it regarding their foreign relations. And here, we see the theoretical power of realism to explain global reality with this concept.
So, it’s time to draw some ideas we commented before and bring them back in to grasp the vast implications of this concept in world politics.
When we speak about the national interest, we refer to the interest of the State. Beyond the specific circumstances of any State, we understand it in power terms. That means we speak about national interest regarding the power of the State within a particular field. So, the national interest is the interest of the State in terms of political power, economic power, military power, demographic power, and so on. Every State seeks the protection of its national interest, and by doing so, they also try to survive in a hostile and competitive environment.
In the international sphere, we come up with the fact that every State has its national interest. This situation makes them develop their strategies to protect it, and therefore, to survive. In this respect, we see how self-help becomes a common practice in world affairs insofar as every State looks for the protection of its national interest. If they didn’t behave in this way, they would compromise their security.
For this reason, when we speak about national interest in the international realm, we refer to national security matters, and how States manage their affairs. That is crucial because the global stage has many different actors, mainly States, but also others such as corporations, individuals, social movements, international organizations, and so on. Nevertheless, States play a central role in this domain because they have the means to do so. They are territorial units, and they have sovereignty. That means they make binding decisions on their societies, and they reach agreements with other actors too.
Insofar as every State pursues its national interest, that makes them enter in conflict with other countries. So, we notice that rivalry, competition, hostility, distrust, and so on, is part of the interactions between States. That doesn’t mean there is no room for cooperation, but that is not the most common situation. Instead of that, every State tries to protect itself by defending its national interest in the external realm. To do so, States struggle for more power because it assures the means to protect themselves before rivals or predator States.
Hence, national interest is a central element in international relations. It explains the primary motivation of every State. In addition to this, it turns out to be crucial to understand the State’s behavior. It contributes to giving rationality to its policy. The State doesn’t behave irrationally or following the mood of any statesman.
On the contrary, its foreign policy has its guideline in the national interest. The State orients and adapts its strategy to the pursuit of its national interest. Otherwise, it would damage its international position because its national interest is different than other countries’ interests.
So, conflict is the most common scenario in international relations. It’s the result of the interaction of contradictory national interests. They end up pushing States to fight. Therefore, when any State considers doing something abroad, it puts its national interest first. It thinks of its interest and its position on the international stage. That is important because relations between countries are not symmetrical. Power relations are asymmetrical by definition. In this situation, every State fears each other, and they compete to preserve their position and to strengthen. When it’s possible, they look for climbing up the world power hierarchy. On other occasions, they try to balance those great powers that represent a threat. And to do so, they resort to alliances and other short term forms of cooperation.
The international realm is anarchic because there is no world government. Consequently, there is no supranational institution that regulates interactions between countries. That explains the conflictive and competitive nature of this domain.
However, we need to understand what shapes the national interest. That is important because it helps us know its rationality. To do so, we have to talk about geopolitics.
States don’t exist in the air. They are territorial entities. They operate in a specific geographical area in which they wield the exclusive right to rule. And geography influences the shape of the national interest. We have to mention different variables. First, there is territory. And by this, I mean the extension. This factor is related to another variable. I refer to the resources available. Besides, we have to stress the importance of borders. The kilometers and their shape because they affect the external relations of the country and the way it manages its international affairs. In addition to this, I want to mention the role of the geographical location, which probably is one of the most critical factors. It determines the neighbors and distances regarding international centers, access to other resources, and wealth. The population is another remarkable resource because it determines the production capacity of any country, and also the needs of supplying.
On the whole, these factors define the national interest because they constitute the internal capacities of the State, and determine its position in the international power structure. Insofar as resources are limited, and they are distributed unequally, every State struggles with others to get them and assure its survival in the long run. Otherwise, it would compromise its national security.
That’s because power is material. To wield enough power to assure your existence, you need to control resources. Without power, or at least enough power to resist other States, you are vulnerable. And that’s not good in a competitive environment. Hence, international relations depend on geopolitical conditions that shape the national interest. They influence interactions between countries insofar as those resources that geography stores are unequally distributed, and they are at stake.
However, the definition of the national interest is not mechanical. That is, material factors play a crucial role. Still, we are dealing with people who rule countries and interpret the State’s position on the international stage. So, other variables also influence what national interest is. But I dare say their importance depends much on material factors and conditions, such as geography. In this respect, geography doesn’t determine but limits the choice of policymakers.
Question of the day! Do you think society should be involved in defining the national interest? If so, how? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.
Bibliography used:
Strayer, Joseph, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State
Strayer, Joseph, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History
Gilbert, Felix (ed.), The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze
Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States: AD 990-1992
Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power
Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State
Anderson, M. S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618
Spruyt, Hendrik, The Sovereign State and its Competitors
Le Goff, Jacques, La Baja Edad Media
Giddens, Anthony, The Nation-State and violence
Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
En esta ocasión analizamos los orígenes del Estado moderno.
Analizamos diferentes conceptualizaciones del modo en el que funciona la política: como organismo, máquina, mercado,…
On this occasion, we analyze the civil-military relations and the paradox between democracy and militarism.
En este episodio desvelamos las claves del funcionamiento de la política.
Abordamos el Estado moderno y sus principales características que lo diferencian de formas estatales previas.
This website uses cookies.