Realist vs Pragmatist – How They Differ

Key Takeaways

• Realist approaches in geopolitics focus on the primacy of state power, sovereignty, and security above all else.
• Pragmatist perspectives value flexible, context-driven solutions when dealing with geopolitical boundaries and international disputes.
• Realism often sees the world as a competitive arena where national interests are paramount, while pragmatism seeks practical compromises even when ideals differ.
• The choice between realist and pragmatist strategies can influence border negotiations, international alliances, and conflict resolution methods worldwide.
• Understanding both approaches helps explain divergent foreign policy decisions and the evolution of boundary-related crises on the global stage.

What is Realist?

Realist, in the context of geopolitics, is a school of thought that prioritizes state interests, security, and the enduring struggle for power. It views international relations as largely shaped by competition and the pursuit of self-preservation among sovereign states.

State-Centric Focus

Realist thought holds that the state is the central actor in international affairs, possessing ultimate authority within its borders. Borders and territorial integrity are seen as non-negotiable priorities for national survival.

This approach assumes that states act primarily to safeguard their power, often at the expense of idealistic or cooperative solutions. For example, a realist state may fortify disputed borders or refuse to compromise on territorial claims, regardless of international opinion.

National interests, particularly security and autonomy, drive policy decisions more than international norms or ethical concerns. The Westphalian principle, which underpins modern concepts of sovereignty, is a cornerstone of realist thinking on boundaries.

Realist leaders often justify military expenditures and border defenses as necessary deterrents against potential threats. In this view, any weakness in protecting territorial claims invites encroachment or aggression from rivals.

Power Dynamics and Security Dilemmas

Realists argue that the international system is inherently anarchic, lacking a central authority to enforce rules across borders. This creates persistent insecurity and compels states to prioritize self-defense.

The security dilemma—a situation where one state’s pursuit of security makes others feel less secure—often plays out in border regions. For instance, military buildups along contested boundaries can escalate tensions, even if each side claims defensive intent.

Realist strategies frequently involve establishing clear deterrence, such as deploying troops or building physical barriers at borders. The Berlin Wall during the Cold War was a stark manifestation of realist logic shaping a geopolitical boundary.

In volatile regions, realists often advocate for buffer zones or spheres of influence to prevent adversaries from gaining proximity to core territories. These measures are justified as essential for national survival in a competitive world.

Persistence of Conflict and Rivalry

Realists contend that disputes over boundaries are natural outcomes of power struggles between states. Historical grievances and shifting balances of power frequently reignite dormant border conflicts.

Territorial disputes in regions like the South China Sea or the India-Pakistan border exemplify realist dynamics, as states vie for control over strategic resources and territory. Compromise is often viewed as a sign of weakness that could undermine future claims.

The realist perspective accepts that peace is at best temporary, achieved through a balance of power rather than genuine reconciliation. Agreements over borders are seen as fragile, subject to revision when the power equation changes.

Thus, realists typically approach international treaties and border demarcations with skepticism, emphasizing the need for constant vigilance and the readiness to defend national interests by force if necessary.

Influence on International Institutions

Realists often regard international organizations and treaties as tools that serve the interests of powerful states. They view such frameworks as limited in their ability to constrain or resolve fundamental boundary disputes.

For instance, the United Nations can facilitate dialogue, but, according to realists, it cannot compel states to respect borders against their will. States may comply with international rulings on boundaries only when it aligns with their own interests.

When multilateral agreements threaten perceived sovereignty or core interests, realist states may withdraw or refuse to participate. This was evident when certain countries rejected the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction in border-related matters.

What is Pragmatist?

Pragmatist, in the context of geopolitical boundaries, refers to an approach that emphasizes adaptable, results-oriented solutions over rigid adherence to doctrine or ideology. It prioritizes practical outcomes and compromise to address border challenges effectively.

Flexible Problem-Solving

Pragmatism encourages states to assess each border situation on its own merits, adapting strategies to current realities rather than following fixed patterns. Solutions are shaped by what works in practice, not necessarily by established theory.

This approach is evident in boundary negotiations that focus on joint development or shared administration of disputed territories. Pragmatist leaders may seek creative arrangements, such as demilitarized zones or transboundary resource management.

For instance, the Norway-Russia agreement on the Barents Sea divided disputed maritime boundaries based on mutual economic benefit rather than historical claims alone. Pragmatists are more likely to prioritize economic cooperation over symbolic victory.

Flexibility also means that agreements can be revisited and revised as circumstances change, allowing for continued dialogue and adjustment. This reduces the likelihood of frozen conflicts and fosters longer-term stability.

Emphasis on Negotiation and Compromise

Pragmatists value open communication and incremental progress in resolving boundary disputes. They often engage in confidence-building measures to reduce tensions and build trust between parties.

Negotiated settlements, even if imperfect, are seen as preferable to prolonged standoffs or military confrontation. The Good Friday Agreement, which addressed the status of the Irish border, is a landmark example of pragmatic negotiation.

Rather than insisting on maximalist positions, pragmatists are willing to make concessions that yield mutual gains. This may involve recognizing de facto situations or accepting shared sovereignty in contested areas.

Pragmatic approaches may include third-party mediation or the involvement of regional organizations to facilitate dialogue. Such flexibility increases the odds of reaching workable solutions even in deeply divided contexts.

Adaptation to Changing Realities

Pragmatists recognize that geopolitical conditions are fluid, requiring ongoing adaptation in boundary management. New economic, environmental, or demographic trends may prompt innovative approaches to border governance.

For example, as climate change alters river courses, pragmatic states may renegotiate boundaries to reflect new natural realities. Migration patterns and cross-border trade can also drive pragmatic adjustments to border controls.

Pragmatists often advocate for pilot projects or temporary agreements to test new arrangements before committing to permanent changes. This iterative process allows for learning and correction as situations evolve.

By remaining open to change, pragmatic actors can manage uncertainty and reduce the risk of protracted conflict over static interpretations of borders.

Collaborative and Multilateral Orientation

Pragmatists tend to see value in working through international bodies and regional forums to address boundary issues. They are more likely to seek win-win outcomes and share best practices across borders.

Collaborative mechanisms, such as river basin commissions or cross-border infrastructure projects, reflect pragmatic thinking. These initiatives can transform boundaries from flashpoints into opportunities for cooperation.

In the Balkans, pragmatic engagement led to the normalization of relations and practical arrangements between countries with a history of border disputes. Such efforts often require compromise but can deliver lasting benefits for all parties involved.

Pragmatists are typically less constrained by traditional notions of absolute sovereignty, focusing instead on shared interests and collective security.

Comparison Table

The following table contrasts key aspects of realist and pragmatist approaches to geopolitical boundaries, highlighting distinct philosophies and practical implications.