Having Gerald R. Ford, “a government big enough

Having political power on a global or state level
yields freedom, as the relationship between power and freedom is imbalanced. According
to Gerald R. Ford, “a government big enough to give you everything you want is
a government big enough to take from you everything you have” (Ford, 1974). Between 431 to 404 BCE, the lack of international
laws affected the international relations. The anarchic system of that time had
brought powerful militaries and diplomatically violent societies. Due to the absence of international
law, governments independently decided which actions would constitute for
justice, causing preparation for violence or threats of violence, in the name
of justice (Eckstein, 2017). The Athenian
government had also been seen as oppressive, also making it less likely for
Athenians to be free to make their own choices (Thucydides, 1996). In History of the Peloponnesian War,
Thucydides discussed that unrestrained power, which uncontrollably leads to the
desire for more power. The Athenians, for example, valued the power they received
after a successful victory over Melos, leading them to war with Sicily. Having not
paid attention to the Melian argument about justice only being useful in the
long run (Thucydides, 1996), the Athenians lost the war due to overestimating
their strength (Korab-Karpowicz, 2017). Since there are no logical limitations
to the size of an empire, this limitation, or division, of power may be in the
best interest of states. A modern-day example would be the American government
system. Three methods that make up the limitations of power the US government
has is the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, checks and balances, and federalism (Cooray,
n.d.). With these power limitations, it prevents the US from committing any
acts deemed undesirable by the rest of the nation. Realism is a more efficient and enduring approach in
international relations. Realism is one of the major theories, formed the
relations between states for centuries, and continues to influence policymakers
today (Orsi, Avgustin, & Nurnus, 2018). Realism, in an IR perspective, can
be defined as “a paradigm based on the premise that world politics is
essentially and unchangeably a struggle among self-interested states for power
and position under anarchy, with each competing state pursuing its own national
interests” (Kegley, 2007). One of the four primary assumptions of realism is
that the system is constructed to form competition for power, in order to
obtain security and power. Human behavior is centralized in realism; it is the
assumption of the realist that individual passions may lead human beings to do
evil things. If human beings were able to express their passions, evil actions
would be carried out on to others (“Realism in International Relations”, n.d.).
As a form of political engagement, international relations dates back to
the time of the Greek historian Thucydides, during the time of the writing of
the History of the Peloponnesian War.
Realistic perception can be viewed from Thucydides’ explanation of the actions
leading up to the Peloponnesian War. Morality in international politics is nearly
irrelevant; the difference between morality and the demand for successful
political actions holds tension. Rejection of morality is evident in the Melian Dialogue. The Melian Dialogue refers
to the Athenians invading Melos in 416 BCE when the Athenian representative
offered the Melians the option of devastations or to submit, and to also not
look at justice but their survival (Thucydides,
1996).