National interest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

National Interest, often referred to by the French expression raison d'État (transl. "reason of state"), is a rationality of governing referring to a sovereign state's goals and ambitions, be they economic, military, cultural, or otherwise. "Raison d'etat" is an integral concept within the field of international relations, as its emergence saw the development of various ways to manage state-to-state relations, as well as of " political arithmetic."[1]:176 The pursuit of national interest is the foundation of the realist school in international relations.


Prior to reformations that swept 16th century Europe, national interest was often understood as secondary to that of religion. To engage in a war, rulers would need to justify the action in such context. The expression "reason of state" (Ragion di Stato) was first popularised by Italian political thinker Giovanni Botero, and championed by Italian diplomat and political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli.

The practice is considered to have been employed by France under the direction of its Chief Minister Cardinal Richelieu in the Thirty Years' War when it intervened on the Protestant side, despite its own Catholicism, in order to block the increasing power of the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor. At Richelieu's prompting, Jean de Silhon defended the concept of raison d'État as "a mean between what conscience permits and affairs require."[2][3][4]

The notion of the national interest soon came to dominate European politics, which became fiercely competitive over the next centuries. It would become a form of reason "born of the calculation and the ruse of men," recognizing the state as "a knowing machine, a work of reason;" the state ceases to be derived from the divine order and is henceforth subject to its own particular necessities.[2][page needed] States would now be able to openly pursue action based on self-interest. Likewise, mercantilism can be seen as the economic justification of the aggressive pursuit of the national interest.

International relations[edit]

The realist school of international relations (IR) is founded on this notion of foreign policy geared towards pursuing the national interest. The school reached its greatest heights at the Congress of Vienna, which amounted to balancing the national interest of several great and lesser powers, for which Klemens von Metternich would be celebrated as the principal artist and theoretician of. However, Metternich had only ever accomplished more or less of what his predecessor, Wenzel Anton, had already done when reversing many of the traditional Habsburg alliances and building international relations anew on the basis of national interest instead of religion or tradition.

Such notions became much criticized after the bloody debacle of the First World War, where some sought to replace the conceptual balance of power with the idea of collective security, whereby all members of the League of Nations would "consider an attack upon one as an attack upon all," thus deterring the use of violence for ever more.[citation needed] The League of Nations did not work, partially due to the refusal of the United States to join, as well as to the fact that, in practice, nations did not always find it "in the national interest" to deter each other from the use of force.

The events of World War II along with World War I, led to a rebirth of realist, as well as the birth of neo-realist, thought, as IR theorists re-emphasized the role of power in global governance. Many such theorists blamed the weakness of the League of Nations on its idealism (contrasted with realism) and ineffectiveness at preventing war, even as they blamed mercantilist 'beggar thy neighbor' policies for the creation of fascist states in Germany and Italy.[citation needed]

With hegemonic stability theory, the concept of U.S. national interest was expanded to include the maintenance of open Sea lanes, as well as the facilitation and expansion of free trade.

As a euphemism[edit]

As considerable disagreement exists in every country as to what is or is not in "the national interest," the term has often been invoked to justify isolationist and pacifistic policies to justify interventionist or warlike policies. It has been posited that the term is a euphemism used by powerful countries for geopolitical aims such as non-renewable resources for energy independency, territorial expansionism, and precious metals in smaller countries.[5] In that case, euphemism usage is necessary to stifle voices opposed to an interventionistic or warhawk foreign policy.[6]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Garland, David. 1997. "'Governmentality' and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology." Theoretical Criminology 1(2): 173–214, SAGE Social Science Collections. ISSN 1362-4806.
  2. ^ a b Thuau, E. 1996. Raison d'État et Pensée Politique a l'époque de Richelieu. Paris: Armand Colin.
  3. ^ Church, W.F. 1973. Richelieu and Reason of State. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p.168.
  4. ^ Franklin, J. 2001. The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp.80-81.
  5. ^ Marley, Anthony D. 1998. Sub-Saharan Africa & U.S. National Interests. p. 182.
  6. ^ Ledent, Bénédicte. 2008. L'ecrivain Caribéen, Guerrier de L'imaginaire. p.42.

Further reading[edit]

  • Beard, Charles A. 1934. The Idea of National Interest. New York: Macmillan.
  • Burchill, Scott. 2005. The National Interest in International Relations Theory. Gordonsville, VA: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Byrd, Peter. 1996. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • University of Political Science. n.d. "National Interest." The Encyclopedia of Political Science.
  • Frankel, Joseph. 1970. National Interest. London: Pall Mall.
  • Gvosdev, Nikolas K. 2004. Russia in the National Interest (1st ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. pp. x. ISBN 978-0-7658-0564-5.
  • Hu, Shaohua. 2016. "A Framework for analysis of national interest: United States policy toward Taiwan." Contemporary Security Policy 37(1):144–167.
  • Lavy, George. 1996. Germany and Israel: Moral Debt and National Interest (1st ed.). London: Frank Cass & Co. pp. xi. ISBN 978-0-7146-4626-8.
  • Nuechterlein, Donald. 1976. "National interests and foreign policy: A conceptual framework for analysis and decision-making." British Journal of International Studies 2(3): 246–66.
  • Rosenau, James. 1968. "National Interest." Pp. 34–40 in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 2(1), edited by D. L. Sills and R. K. Merton. New York: Macmillan/Free Press.
  • Troianiello, Antonino. 1999. Raison d’État et droit public, Thesis paper, Université du Havre, 748 pages.