Question

South Sudan has had more than 12peace agreements signed since it got its independence. No sooner have the indicators for peace began to show than the violence breaks out in one part of the country. Different people have proposed the adoption of different theories in dealing with the crisis in the country. Many argue that the theory of realism in dealing with conflict and insecurity is better than the institutional approach. Indeed, institutions like IGAD have been criticized enough for not attaining peace in South Sudan despite the many years of peace-talks. As a student of this unit, which of the theories is better positioned to aid in dealing with the South Sudan crisis?

INTRODUCTION

• THEORY OF REALISM

The Theory of Realism: Meaning, Importance, Strengths, and Relation to Conflicts in South Sudan

Realism is one of the dominant paradigms in international relations theory, emphasizing the anarchic nature of the global system where states act as rational, self-interested actors prioritizing survival, power, and security in a world without a central authority (Duguri et al., 2022). Classical realism, pioneered by thinkers like Hans Morgenthau and Thucydides, views human nature as inherently selfish and power-seeking, leading states to pursue national interests aggressively. Structural realism, developed by Kenneth Waltz, shifts focus to the system’s structure anarchy forcing states to engage in self-help, balance of power, and security dilemmas, where one state’s gain is another’s loss (Nedal, & Nexon, 2019), Realism assumes states are unitary actors in perpetual competition, with military capability and alliances as key tools, often dismissing morality, institutions, or domestic politics as secondary to power dynamics.

The importance of realism lies in its explanatory power for understanding enduring patterns of conflict, war, and great power rivalry in an anarchic world. It provides a pragmatic lens for policymakers, highlighting why cooperation is difficult and why states prioritize relative gains over absolute ones (Mearsheimer, 2014). In a multipolar or bipolar system, realism warns of instability from miscalculations and arms races, influencing strategies like deterrence during the Cold War. Its enduring relevance is evident in analyzing contemporary issues such as U.S.-China competition or Russia’s actions in Ukraine, where power balances overshadow ideals (Sharma, 2022).

Realism’s strengths include its parsimony offering simple, predictive models based on power distribution and empirical grounding in historical conflicts, from Peloponnesian Wars to World Wars, it excels at explaining why states arm, form alliances, or pursue hegemony in anarchy, avoiding idealistic assumptions about human progress or institutions (Kvernmo, 2024). Offensive realism accurately predicts revisionist behaviour by rising powers, while defensive realism accounts for balancing coalitions (Narizny, 2017).

In South Sudan, realism illuminates the persistence of conflict through internal anarchy and elite power struggles. The 2013 civil war erupted from a power rift between President Salva Kiir and Riek Machar, ethnicized along Dinka-Nuer lines, reflecting realist self-help where factions prioritize survival and dominance amid weak institutions (CFR, 2025). Sub-national clashes (2025 Upper Nile violence) demonstrate security dilemmas: communities arm for protection, escalating cycles of raids and revenge (UNMISS, 2025). Realism explains failed peace agreements (over 12 since 2011) as temporary truces in zero-sum games, with elites exploiting ethnicity for power rather than pursuing collective security (Human Rights Watch, 2025). External actors (Uganda, Sudan) intervene per balance-of-power logic, prolonging instability (Crisis Group, 2025). While realism critiques institutional efforts like IGAD as ineffective against power realities, it overlooks domestic drivers like identity and governance failures.

• INSTITUTIONAL THEORY

The institutional approach, often referred to as liberal institutionalism or regime theory, posits that international and regional institutions, norms, and cooperative frameworks can mitigate the anarchic nature of global politics by facilitating trust, reducing transaction costs, and enabling sustained cooperation among states and actors (Sapre et al., 2025). Institutions such as the United Nations, African Union, or regional bodies like the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) establish rules, monitoring mechanisms, and dialogue platforms that constrain self-interested behaviour and promote collective problem-solving, even in power-asymmetric environments, Unlike realism’s focus on power balances and coercion, institutionalism views cooperation as possible through repeated interactions and shared interests (Libman, & Gawrich, 2021).

The importance of the institutional approach lies in its provision of structured pathways for peace in fragile or conflict-affected states, where unilateral actions often exacerbate instability. Institutions offer neutral mediation, enforce compliance through monitoring, and integrate diverse stakeholders, addressing root causes like governance deficits and resource disputes (De Coning, 2017). In Africa, they have supported ceasefires, transitional governments, and regional stability, making them essential for long-term reconciliation and development beyond short-term truces.

Key strengths include; uncertainty reduction via information sharing and verification; cooperation promotion through reciprocity and norms; inclusivity by involving civil society and opposition; legitimacy building for agreements; and toolbox provision for mediation, peacekeeping, and justice (UN, 2024).

In South Sudan, the institutional approach is exemplified by IGAD’s mediation of multiple agreements, culminating in the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS), which established power-sharing, security reforms, and transitional justice (IGAD, 2018). It reflects institutionalism by creating mechanisms for elite cooperation and international oversight via UNMISS. However, peace talks repeatedly fail due to structural weaknesses: elite opportunism exploits agreements for power without commitment, leading to delays in reforms (Crisis Group, 2025). Low trust, ethnic divisions, and impunity erode credibility, while inconsistent external enforcement IGAD hampered by member rivalries and funding shortages undermine monitoring (Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, 2025). Recent 2025 violence (Upper Nile clashes) highlights how institutions falter without domestic buy-in and robust implementation (UNMISS, 2025).

Realism vs. Institutionalism in Addressing the South Sudan Crisis

The South Sudan crisis, marked by over 12 failed peace agreements since independence in 2011, exemplifies the tension between command-driven approaches and collaborative mechanisms in conflict resolution. Realism, a theory rooted in state-centric power politics, posits that international relations are anarchic, with states prioritizing survival through self-help, balance of power, and alliances, often leading to zero-sum outcomes where cooperation is limited and temporary (Mearsheimer, 2014). In contrast, institutionalism (or liberal institutionalism) emphasizes the role of international institutions, norms, and regimes in mitigating anarchy by fostering cooperation, reducing transaction costs, and building trust among states and non-state actors (Keohane, 1984). In South Sudan, where violence frequently erupts despite ceasefires, understanding these theories is crucial. Realism may explain the persistence of conflict through elite power struggles, while institutionalism highlights the potential of regional bodies like IGAD to facilitate dialogue. This reflection argues that institutionalism is better positioned to address the crisis, as it promotes inclusive, sustained peace-building over realism’s emphasis on coercive balance.

Realism provides a compelling lens for understanding why command often manifested as military dominance has failed to resolve South Sudan’s instability. The country’s conflicts, driven by ethnic rivalries between leaders like Salva Kiir and Riek Machar, reflect realist notions of states pursuing power amid anarchy, where agreements collapse due to mutual distrust and zero-sum perceptions (Roberge, 2019). For instance, the 2013 civil war erupted from political infighting that ethnicized along Dinka-Nuer lines, with command structures (SSPDF loyal to Kiir) clashing against opposition militias, leading to over 383,000 deaths and mass displacements (Human Rights Watch, 2023).

Realism would advocate for stronger state command through military consolidation or alliances to achieve balance, but this has perpetuated violence: recent 2025 clashes in Upper Nile and Jonglei demonstrate how power vacuums invite militia mobilization, viewing peace as a temporary truce rather than resolution (UNMISS, 2025). While realism accurately diagnoses elite-driven insecurity, it offers limited solutions beyond coercion, which risks escalating atrocities and ignoring root causes like resource competition and weak institutions (Wight, 2021).

Institutionalism, however, is better suited to South Sudan’s crisis by emphasizing cooperative frameworks that transcend command, fostering long-term stability through shared norms and mediation. IGAD’s role in brokering the 2018 Revitalized Agreement (R-ARCSS) exemplifies this: despite delays, it facilitated a transitional government and ceasefires, reducing large-scale war while enabling humanitarian access.

Recent 2025 efforts, including IGAD’s mediation in Juba and joint communiques with AUMISS and UNMISS, highlight institutionalism’s strength in harmonizing regional/international responses, addressing root causes like power-sharing and security reforms (UNMISS, 2024). Unlike realism’s focus on power balances, institutionalism builds trust via mechanisms like the African Union Commission of Inquiry (AUCISS), promoting accountability and reconciliation (Wight, 2021). Though criticized for slow progress, IGAD’s persistence has prevented total relapse, proving institutions can mitigate anarchy in multi-ethnic states (Roberge, 2019).

In my view, institutionalism is superior for South Sudan, as realism’s state-power focus perpetuates elite command struggles and ethnic divisions, while institutions like IGAD enable inclusive dialogue, norm-building, and external support essential for fragile states (Keohane, 1984). Realism may explain conflict dynamics but offers no pathway beyond coercion, whereas institutionalism’s cooperative approach aligns with South Sudan’s need for regional mediation and peace-building, as evidenced by partial successes in reducing violence post-2018 (UNMISS, 2025).

• Reasons why institutionalism is superior to theory of realism

Addressing the Root Causes of Conflict

Institutionalism is better positioned than realism in dealing with the South Sudan crisis because it focuses on addressing the root causes of conflict rather than merely managing power struggles among elites. While realism emphasizes military strength, coercion, and the pursuit of national interest by dominant actors, South Sudan’s conflict is deeply rooted in weak governance structures, ethnic exclusion, lack of accountability, and fragile state institutions. Institutionalism recognizes that sustainable peace cannot be achieved through force alone but through building inclusive political, judicial, and administrative institutions that manage competition peacefully. By strengthening institutions such as constitutional bodies, courts, electoral systems, and local governance structures, grievances that often trigger renewed violence can be systematically addressed.

Promoting Long-Term and Sustainable Peace

Unlike realism, which often prioritizes short-term stability through power balancing and deterrence, institutionalism is oriented toward long-term peace. South Sudan’s history of repeated peace agreements collapsing demonstrates the limits of realist approaches that focus on elite power-sharing without strong institutions to implement and monitor agreements. Institutionalism emphasizes the creation of enforcement and monitoring mechanisms such as joint commissions, regional guarantors, and international oversight bodies that ensure compliance with peace agreements. These institutional arrangements help transform ceasefires into durable peace by embedding cooperation into formal rules and procedures rather than relying on the goodwill or strength of armed actors.

Encouraging Cooperation and Regional Engagement

Institutionalism provides a stronger framework for regional and international cooperation, which is crucial in the South Sudan context. Realism often treats regional actors as competitors pursuing their own interests, which can undermine collective peace efforts. In contrast, institutionalism views organizations such as IGAD, the African Union, and the United Nations as platforms that facilitate dialogue, coordination, and collective action. Despite criticisms, these institutions offer legitimacy, mediation expertise, and diplomatic pressure that no single state can effectively provide alone. Through shared norms and structured engagement, institutionalism enhances coordinated responses to conflict and reduces the risk of unilateral interventions that may escalate violence.

Enhancing Legitimacy and Public Trust

Another key advantage of institutionalism is its emphasis on legitimacy and public trust, which are essential for peace in South Sudan. Realist approaches tend to focus on elite bargains and military dominance, often sidelining ordinary citizens. This exclusion fuels resentment and undermines peace agreements. Institutionalism, however, promotes participatory governance, rule of law, and transparency. By involving civil society, traditional leaders, women, and youth in institutional processes, the peacebuilding effort gains broader societal support. When citizens perceive institutions as fair and representative, they are more likely to resolve disputes peacefully rather than resort to violence.

Reducing Reliance on Violence as a Political Tool

Finally, institutionalism is better suited to reducing South Sudan’s chronic reliance on violence as a means of political competition. Realism implicitly normalizes violence by viewing it as a legitimate instrument for securing power. In contrast, institutionalism seeks to replace violence with rules, norms, and dispute-resolution mechanisms. Functional institutions such as independent courts, security sector oversight bodies, and conflict-resolution frameworks offer non-violent channels for addressing political and ethnic tensions. Over time, this institutionalized approach helps transform the political culture from one dominated by armed confrontation to one governed by law and negotiated compromise, making it more effective for resolving South Sudan’s recurring crises.

Managing Ethnic Diversity and Identity Politics

Institutionalism is better positioned than realism in managing South Sudan’s deep ethnic diversity and identity-based conflicts. Realism largely overlooks internal societal divisions by focusing on state power and elite interests, yet in South Sudan, violence is often driven by ethnic mistrust and competition over resources. Institutionalism emphasizes inclusive political arrangements, decentralization, and power-sharing frameworks that are embedded within formal institutions rather than enforced by military strength. Institutions such as federal or decentralized governance structures, ethnic representation mechanisms, and local councils can help accommodate diversity and reduce feelings of marginalization, thereby lowering the likelihood of ethnic violence.

Strengthening Accountability and Rule of Law

Another important reason institutionalism is superior is its focus on accountability and the rule of law. Realist approaches often tolerate impunity as long as powerful actors maintain stability, which has perpetuated cycles of violence in South Sudan. Institutionalism insists on legal and judicial institutions that hold individuals accountable for human rights abuses and violations of peace agreements. Mechanisms such as hybrid courts, truth commissions, and anti-corruption agencies help deter future violence by signaling that crimes will not go unpunished. Accountability strengthens deterrence through law rather than force, making peace more credible and durable.

Supporting State-Building and Capacity Development

Institutionalism directly addresses the state-building challenges facing South Sudan. As a young state, South Sudan lacks strong administrative, security, and service-delivery institutions. Realism assumes the existence of a coherent and capable state, which is not the case in South Sudan. Institutionalism, on the other hand, prioritizes capacity-building in public administration, security sector reform, and economic governance. By developing professional civil services and accountable security forces, institutionalism helps the state gain the capacity to govern effectively, deliver services, and reduce citizens’ dependence on armed groups for protection and livelihoods.

Improving Economic Governance and Resource Management

Institutionalism also offers better tools for addressing economic drivers of conflict, particularly competition over oil revenues and public resources. Realism tends to view economic resources as instruments of power to be controlled by dominant actors, often reinforcing corruption and exclusion. Institutionalism promotes transparent and accountable economic institutions, such as public financial management systems, revenue-sharing frameworks, and independent oversight bodies. By ensuring fair distribution and responsible management of resources, institutionalism reduces economic grievances that fuel conflict and creates incentives for cooperation rather than violent competition.

Aligning Peacebuilding with International Norms and Support

Lastly, institutionalism aligns South Sudan’s peace process with international norms and sustained global support. Realism prioritizes sovereignty and self-interest, which can limit constructive international engagement. Institutionalism, however, embraces norms such as human rights, democracy, and collective security, making it easier to mobilize long-term international assistance. International donors and partners are more likely to support peace processes that are grounded in strong institutions, clear rules, and accountability mechanisms. This sustained engagement enhances the chances of successful implementation of peace agreements and reduces the likelihood of relapse into violence, making institutionalism better positioned to address South Sudan’s ongoing crisis.

Enhancing Early Warning and Conflict Prevention Mechanisms

Institutionalism is better positioned than realism in strengthening early warning and conflict prevention mechanisms in South Sudan. Realism tends to react to violence once it has already escalated, relying on military responses and power balancing to restore order. Institutionalism, however, emphasizes the establishment of formal systems for monitoring tensions, such as peace observatories, local conflict-resolution committees, and regional early warning units under organizations like IGAD and the African Union. These institutions can detect signs of rising insecurity such as hate speech, cattle-raiding patterns, or political mobilization before they erupt into large-scale violence, allowing for timely diplomatic and preventive interventions.

Supporting Social Reconciliation and National Cohesion

Finally, institutionalism provides a stronger framework for social reconciliation and national cohesion, which are critical for lasting peace in South Sudan. Realism focuses primarily on managing power among elites and armed groups, often neglecting societal healing after prolonged violence. Institutionalism supports structured reconciliation processes through truth-telling mechanisms, reparations programs, and community-based peace institutions. By institutionalizing reconciliation, grievances are acknowledged and addressed in an organized and legitimate manner. This helps rebuild trust among communities, fosters a shared national identity, and reduces the likelihood that unresolved historical grievances will trigger renewed cycles of violence.

REFERENCES

Allison, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Council on Foreign Relations. (2025). Instability in South Sudan.

Crisis Group. (2025). South Sudan on the precipice.

De Coning, C. (2017). Peace enforcement in Africa: doctrinal distinctions between the African Union and United Nations. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(1), 145-160.

Duguri, U. S., Hassan, I., & Ibrahim, Y. K. (2022). International relations, realism, and liberalism: A theoretical review. International Journal of Social and Humanities Extension (IJSHE), 1-6.

Human Rights Watch. (2025). World report 2025: South Sudan.

Kvernmo, E. (2024). Predicting Great Power War in a multipolar world: A structural realist framework. Authorea Preprints.

Libman, A., & Gawrich, A. (2021). Actorness of Regional Organizations in an Authoritarian Context: A Conceptual Framework. Available at SSRN 4012062.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W. W. Norton.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault. Foreign Affairs, 93(5).

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault: the liberal delusions that provoked Putin. Foreign Aff., 93, 77.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations. Knopf.

Narizny, K. (2017). On systemic paradigms and domestic politics: A critique of the newest realism. International Security, 42(2), 155-190.

Nedal, D. K., & Nexon, D. H. (2019). Anarchy and authority: International structure, the balance of power, and hierarchy. Journal of Global Security Studies, 4(2), 169-189.

Roberge, J., Morin, K., & Senneville, M. (2019). Deep Learning’s Governmentality. The Other Black Box.

Sapre, A. A., Shah, S. A., Mushtaq, S. M., & Singh, S. (2025). Power Dynamics and Institutional Resilience in the Liberal International Order: A Legal Perspective. In International Relations Theory and Philosophical Political Insights Into Conflict Management (pp. 113-142). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.

Sharma, S. (2022). Anarchy Is What It Is Made Up Of: Reappraising Kenneth Waltz’s Grand Concept Through a Marxian Lens. International Studies, 59(4), 336-363.

Thucydides. (1972). History of the Peloponnesian War (R. Warner, Trans.). Penguin. (Original work c. 411 BCE)

UNMISS. (2025). Subnational violence report.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.