DO THE WEAK AND COLLAPSED STATES POSE A CHALLENGES TO THE REALIST WORLDVIEW?

This article explores whether the growing phenomenon of weak and collapsed states poses a fundamental challenge to the realist worldview in international relations theory. It begins by outlining the core tenets of realism, which focuses on the interactions between strong, rational states in an anarchic international system. The study then examines the nature of weak and collapsed states, which lack the very attributes of sovereignty and state capacity that are central to the realist model. The research argues that realism, with its focus on great power politics and the balance of power, is ill-equipped to explain the causes or consequences of state fragility. The paper posits that the security threats emanating from these states, such as terrorism and transnational crime, are not the traditional state-based threats that realism is designed to analyze. The analysis concludes that while realism remains a powerful tool for understanding great power relations, the problem of state weakness represents a significant anomaly that highlights the limitations of the realist paradigm in the contemporary world.

Realism, the dominant theory of international relations, is built on a set of core assumptions about a world of strong, unitary, and rational states competing for power. This paper asks a critical question: how well does this worldview hold up in an era where many states are weak, fragmented, and have even collapsed? The study begins with a concise summary of the central propositions of the realist school of thought. The core of the article is a systematic examination of how the phenomenon of state weakness and collapse challenges each of these propositions. It argues that realism's focus on the distribution of capabilities *between* states makes it blind to the critical importance of the distribution of capabilities *within* states. The paper uses the case of a collapsed state like Somalia to demonstrate how the primary security threats can come not from other states, but from a range of non-state actors operating in an ungoverned space. It also critiques realism's narrow definition of security, arguing that for the populations of fragile states, the greatest threats are often from their own governments or from civil conflict, a reality that the state-centric realist model cannot easily accommodate. The findings suggest that while realism has not been rendered obsolete, its explanatory power is severely limited when it comes to understanding one of the most significant security challenges of the post-Cold War era. The paper concludes that a more complete understanding of contemporary international politics requires a theoretical toolkit that goes beyond realism to incorporate insights from liberal and constructivist theories that are better equipped to analyze the internal dynamics of states and the role of non-state actors.