Classical Realism & Neo-realism

Classical Realism & Neo-realism: Realism has long been a central theoretical perspective in international relations, gaining prominence after the Second World War and maintaining its relevance in the interconnected world of the 21st century. True to its name, realism seeks to explain the realities of international politics (what is) as opposed to the idealist school of thought, which emphasizes what ought to be. As Hans Morgenthau argued, realism is an empirical paradigm rather than a normative one. It focuses on understanding the status quo, the mechanisms of order, and how they are maintained in international relations.

The broad acceptance of realism stems from its capacity to explain why states compete and engage in war. Since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, there have been over 200 wars and conflicts in the international system. Realism, often referred to as the study of power politics, places power at the center of its analysis. However, it is best understood as a collection of theories rather than a singular framework, emphasizing key factors such as national interest, state behavior, and military strength in world politics.

Beyond political thinkers, numerous rulers, diplomats, and military strategists have contributed to the development of realism as a theoretical tradition. Influential figures include military theorist and Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, Austrian statesman Klemens von Metternich, former French President Charles de Gaulle, and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Despite its many variants, all branches of realism share a focus on the centrality of power and the role of military means in state policies. Realism generally adopts a pessimistic view of the potential for radical reform in the international system. Its close relationship with security studies is evident in their shared emphasis on conflict, war, and survival. The principle of “survival of the fittest,” as articulated by Charles Darwin, finds resonance in realism’s interpretation of international politics.

Realism is traditionally categorized into three distinct schools of thought: classical realism, neorealism (or structural realism), and neoclassical realism. Each offers unique insights while adhering to the fundamental tenets of power and competition in the anarchic international system.

Basic Assumptions of Realism

Realism is a prominent approach to the study of international relations, but it is not a single, unified theory. Instead, as Jonathan Haslam notes in No Virtue Like Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations since Machiavelli (2002), realism is better understood as a spectrum of ideas rather than a fixed, sharply defined concept. Duncan Bell suggests that realism is best defined in negative terms — by what it rejects rather than by what it endorses. One key rejection shared by all realist perspectives is the dismissal of morality and ethics in international politics. Realists argue that justice has no place in international relations, which are inherently characterized by competition and conflict among states.

Despite the diversity of realist theories, they share a set of core assumptions and beliefs, which are outlined below:

1. States as Primary Actors

Realists believe that sovereign states are the most important actors in international relations. While other entities like international organizations and non-state actors exist, realists view their influence as secondary. Therefore, realism focuses primarily on explaining state behavior.

2. Power and Security as Core Concerns

Realism emphasizes the centrality of power and security in international relations. Since survival is the ultimate goal of every state, realists argue that states must prioritize military strength (hard power) to ensure their survival. This distinction between “high politics” (security, military, and survival issues) and “low politics” (economic, social, and cultural issues) is essential to realism. High politics are deemed crucial for a state’s survival, whereas low politics are considered less critical.

3. Human Nature and Rationality

Realism draws from the assumption that human nature is self-interested and driven by ego. Similarly, states, as collective entities, behave like individuals with rational self-interest. Realists argue that states act in pursuit of raison d’état (reasons of state), where moral and ethical considerations are secondary to the pursuit of national interest. As rational actors, states make strategic decisions to maximize their own power and ensure survival.

4. Anarchy in the International System

A fundamental premise of realism is that the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority or global government to enforce rules or protect the interests of the global community. In this “self-help” system, states must rely on themselves to secure their national interests, as no external authority exists to safeguard their security. Without a global authority to deter and punish wrongdoing, the possibility of moral action is limited.

5. Balance of Power (BoP) as a Survival Strategy

To survive in an anarchic system, states seek to prevent any single state from becoming too powerful. This is achieved through the balance of power (BoP), a mechanism that prevents one state from dominating others. Balancing can occur in two ways:

External balancing: States form alliances with other countries to counter a potential threat.
Internal balancing: States strengthen their own military and economic power to deter potential aggressors.

A modern example is India’s strategy to balance China. India has strengthened its military capabilities (internal balancing) while simultaneously forging alliances with powers like the United States, Japan, and France (external balancing) to counterbalance China’s influence in the region.

6. The Security Dilemma

The security dilemma is a situation where actions taken by one state to increase its security (like enhancing military power) inadvertently threaten the security of other states. This, in turn, prompts other states to take similar actions, leading to an arms race or perpetual cycles of competition and distrust. Since each state’s security enhancement reduces the security of others, cooperation becomes difficult, and mistrust increases. This is often referred to as a “zero-sum” game, where one state’s gain in security is perceived as another state’s loss.

Classical Realism

Classical realism emerged as a significant approach to the study of international relations after the Second World War, prominently reflected in the works of E.H. Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans Morgenthau. This approach attributes state behavior to the nature of human beings, viewing human nature as the root cause of conflicts between states. However, the principles of realism existed long before it was formalized as a theory, with elements traceable in the ideas of both Western and non-Western political thinkers from ancient and medieval periods.

Informally, the foundations of realism can be found in the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Thucydides, writing in the 5th century BCE. Other influential Western realist thinkers include Machiavelli and Hobbes. Similarly, non-Western philosophers such as Kautilya from India and Sun Tzu and Han Feizi from China contributed ideas consistent with the realist paradigm in international politics. Below is a discussion of some of the key thinkers in classical realism.

Thucydides: The Origins of Realist Thought

The views of Thucydides, an Athenian historian and general from the 5th century BCE, are often regarded as the foundation of the realist school of thought in international politics. As a participant in the Peloponnesian War between the Delian League (led by Athens) and the Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta), Thucydides documented his experiences in his influential work, The History of the Peloponnesian War, a collection of eight books. His observations on power, human nature, and international conflict laid the groundwork for several key realist concepts.

1. Core Ideas of Realism in Thucydides’ Work

One of Thucydides’ most well-known realist principles is the assertion that “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” This phrase highlights a central tenet of realism — power determines outcomes in international relations. Thucydides argued that power, not morality or justice, governs the relations between states. In his view, stronger powers naturally dominate weaker ones, as might makes right in an anarchic world. This perspective reflects the idea that politics is driven by power rather than ideals or moral considerations.

2. The Melian Dialogue: A Case Study in Realist Thought

A key section of The History of the Peloponnesian War is the Melian Dialogue, presented in Book 5. This dialogue is a dramatized conversation between representatives of Melos (a small neutral island) and Athens (a major power in the Peloponnesian War). The dialogue illustrates the core difference between realist and idealist perspectives.

The Melians argue for moral principles like justice, neutrality, and fairness. They believe that by invoking justice, they can persuade Athens to respect their neutrality.
The Athenians reject this notion, insisting that power and self-interest, not morality, dictate international relations. They argue that justice only exists between equals, while the unequal relationship between Athens (a powerful state) and Melos (a weaker state) means that might prevails. The Athenians stress that independent states can survive only if they are strong enough to defend themselves.

The moral of the dialogue is that power imbalance leads to domination, with stronger states asserting their will over weaker ones to serve their self-interest. This interaction highlights the harsh realities of power politics and the precarious position of small or weak states in an anarchic international system.

3. Thucydides and the Nature of Power and Human Behavior

Thucydides viewed power not just as a feature of state interactions but as a reflection of human nature. He argued that human behavior is driven by three main motives:

Fear (phobos)
Honor (time)
Interest or self-gain (kerdos)

These motives, in turn, influence the actions of states, as they mirror the behavior of individuals. This idea is echoed in the works of Robert Gilpin, a modern realist thinker, who argued that Thucydides was a realist because he identified these motives as the root causes of war and conflict. According to Gilpin, values like beauty, goodness, and truth are only preserved when the conditions for security are met. Without security, power struggles among groups lead to the erosion of higher values.

4. Parallels with Thrasymachus’ View of Justice

Around the same time, similar ideas about justice and power were articulated by Thrasymachus, a Sophist and prominent teacher of rhetoric. In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus offers a radical definition of justice, claiming that justice is the interest of the stronger. This view aligns closely with Thucydides’ perspective, reinforcing the realist idea that morality and justice are subordinate to power in political affairs. While Thrasymachus was concerned with justice in domestic politics, his ideas resonate with Thucydides’ understanding of justice in international relations.

Thucydides’ insights into power, human nature, and international conflict remain essential to the realist school of thought. His reflections on the Peloponnesian War, particularly the Melian Dialogue, emphasize that power and self-interest drive international politics. His assertion that “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must” continues to influence contemporary realist thinkers. Like Thrasymachus’ definition of justice as the interest of the stronger, Thucydides’ view of politics as a power struggle underpins the core assumptions of realism, including power politics, self-interest, and the central role of military strength in ensuring survival.

Kautilya: The Pre-Modern Realist Thinker

Kautilya, also known as Chanakya, is often regarded as a pre-modern pioneer of political realism. His seminal work, the Arthashastra, offers profound insights into statecraft, power politics, and diplomacy. Despite its theoretical significance, the Arthashastra has been largely overlooked, both in India and globally, reflecting the Eurocentric bias in the study of international relations.

Political thinker Roger Boesche, in his book The First Great Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra (2002), describes Kautilya as the “first great, unrelenting political realist.” He highlights Kautilya’s pragmatic approach to governance and power, which anticipated many principles found in modern realism. Similarly, Max Weber recognized Kautilya’s ability to gaze “relentlessly at the realities of life” without being swayed by ideological considerations.

1. Core Ideas of Realism in Kautilya’s Arthashastra

Kautilya’s Arthashastra reflects several key concepts of political realism, including:

Primacy of National Interest: The pursuit of national interest (rashtra hita) is central to Kautilya’s vision of governance and diplomacy. Just as modern realists emphasize the role of the national interest, Kautilya advises rulers to prioritize the security, stability, and power of the state.
Anarchic Nature of Inter-State Relations: Kautilya recognized that inter-state relations operate in an anarchic system where no overarching authority exists to regulate the conduct of states. In such a system, survival depends on the ability of a state to protect itself from both internal and external threats.
Power-Centric Approach: Power, in its various forms (military, economic, and strategic), is seen as the primary determinant of success in statecraft. Kautilya’s insistence on using force, wealth, and alliances to maintain dominance is similar to the modern realist focus on hard power.

2. Kautilya’s Four Upayas (Strategies) for Statecraft

Kautilya outlines four key methods (known as Chatur Upayas) to achieve a favorable balance of power:

Sama (conciliation): Using diplomacy and negotiation to achieve peaceful outcomes.
Dana (gift or inducement): Offering incentives or bribes to win over rivals.
Bheda (division): Sowing discord among adversaries through divide-and-rule tactics.
Danda (punishment or force): Resorting to military action when other methods fail.

These strategies bear a striking resemblance to the modern realist methods described by Hans Morgenthau, including tactics like divide and rule, use of alliances, and military build-up to maintain a balance of power.

3. Kautilya’s Influence on Modern Realist Thinkers

Kautilya’s ideas continue to shape contemporary realist thought.

Hans Morgenthau, the father of modern realism, drew inspiration from the ideas of ancient thinkers, including Kautilya, alongside figures from Greek and Chinese philosophy. Morgenthau’s emphasis on the centrality of power, the inevitability of conflict, and the role of self-interest in politics mirrors Kautilya’s principles.
Henry Kissinger, a prominent American diplomat and scholar of realism, compared Kautilya to Machiavelli (author of The Prince) and Clausewitz (a military strategist). Kissinger viewed Kautilya as a unique blend of pragmatic realism and military strategy, noting that his philosophy combined the cunning of Machiavelli with the strategic precision of Clausewitz.

4. Idealism and Morality in the Arthashastra

Although the Arthashastra is widely perceived as a realist treatise, it also contains references to dharma (moral duty or righteousness). Unlike modern realist theorists who tend to reject morality in politics, Kautilya’s work reflects a balance between realism and normative values. While the pursuit of power and national interest is paramount, the inclusion of dharma implies that statecraft must also uphold moral principles to ensure good governance.

This duality reveals a more holistic approach to governance, one that combines elements of realism (pragmatism and power politics) with idealism (moral and ethical values). Kautilya’s nuanced perspective sets him apart from Western realists like Machiavelli, who completely reject morality in politics.

Kautilya’s Arthashastra represents a timeless guide to power politics, diplomacy, and statecraft. His ideas on the primacy of power, pursuit of national interest, and the methods of balancing power foreshadowed the principles of modern realism. Kautilya’s recognition of the anarchic nature of inter-state relations and the need for self-help closely aligns with contemporary realist thought. However, what sets Kautilya apart is his fusion of realism with moral principles, as reflected in his emphasis on dharma. This blend of idealism and realism makes his philosophy distinct from the works of later Western realists like Machiavelli and Clausewitz.

Despite its relevance, the Eurocentric nature of international relations as a discipline has often sidelined the contributions of Kautilya. Yet, his legacy as a founding father of political realism is undeniable, and his influence continues to shape theories of statecraft and power politics to this day.

Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes: Pioneers of Political Realism

Niccolò Machiavelli (15th century) and Thomas Hobbes (16th century) are two of the most influential thinkers in the development of realist theory in political philosophy and international relations. Their works laid the foundation for modern realism, emphasizing power, survival, and the role of human nature in politics.

1. Niccolò Machiavelli: Politics Without Morality

Machiavelli, an Italian diplomat, philosopher, and historian, is often seen as the father of modern political realism. His most famous work, The Prince, marked a radical departure from the classical view that politics should be guided by virtue and morality. Instead, he introduced a pragmatic, amoral approach to power and governance, arguing that the pursuit of power and survival justified the use of any means — whether moral or immoral.

Key Ideas of Machiavelli’s Realism

Separation of Politics and Morality:
Machiavelli broke with the prevailing belief that politics should adhere to moral or religious ideals. Instead, he emphasized “effective truth” — the truth that is experienced in reality as opposed to idealized notions of justice or morality. According to Machiavelli, a ruler must be willing to employ deception, manipulation, and even cruelty when necessary to secure the state’s survival. This perspective is captured in his famous assertion that “the ends justify the means.”
Primacy of Power and State Survival:
The central theme of Machiavelli’s The Prince is that the survival of the state is the highest duty of a ruler. The pursuit of power is essential to ensure the stability and security of the state, even if it requires immoral actions. For Machiavelli, a successful prince must be both a “fox” (cunning) and a “lion” (forceful) — able to deceive his rivals while using brute strength when required.
Realism as a Response to Instability:
Machiavelli lived through a period of constant political instability, marked by wars and shifting alliances in Italy. These experiences shaped his belief that politics is governed by the harsh realities of power, not by moral principles. His views on power politics and political survival directly align with the principles of classical realism in international relations.

Machiavelli’s Influence on Realism

Machiavelli’s notion that power and survival should guide politics influenced key realist thinkers like Hans Morgenthau. Morgenthau’s idea of political power as an autonomous sphere draws directly from Machiavelli’s assertion that politics must be independent of morality. This concept forms a core principle of modern realism, where state interest and power are seen as the driving forces of international relations.

2. Thomas Hobbes: Human Nature and the Anarchic State of Nature

Unlike Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes did not directly address international relations. However, his work Leviathan (1651) profoundly influenced realist thinking, particularly the concepts of anarchy, human nature, and the necessity of power for survival.

Key Ideas of Hobbes’ Realism

Human Nature as Selfish and Power-Seeking: Hobbes rejected the idealist view that human beings are rational and moral by nature. Instead, he argued that humans are inherently selfish, egoistic, and power-hungry, constantly striving to increase their power and satisfy their desires. This pessimistic view of human nature became one of the cornerstones of realist theory.
The State of Nature and Anarchy: Hobbes introduced the idea of the “state of nature” — a hypothetical condition where human beings lived before the establishment of organized societies and governments. In this state, there was no authority to enforce laws or protect individuals, leading to a situation of constant insecurity and conflict. This condition was famously described as a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes), where individuals had no guarantee of safety or survival.
Anarchy in International Relations: Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature was later applied to international relations. Just as individuals in the state of nature exist in anarchy, Hobbes argued that independent sovereign states exist in a similar anarchic environment. Since there is no global government to enforce order, states must rely on self-help to ensure their security. This notion of international anarchy was later adopted by Kenneth Waltz’s neorealism, which sees the anarchic structure of the international system as the primary driver of state behavior.
The Role of Power and Security: In the state of nature, Hobbes argued that individuals seek to secure their survival through power. Since there is no central authority to provide protection, individuals are compelled to seek power to protect themselves. This struggle for security leads to a cycle of fear, mistrust, and pre-emptive aggression. When applied to international relations, this concept is seen as the basis for the security dilemma — a situation where the defensive actions of one state are perceived as threats by other states, leading to an arms race or conflict.
Possibility of Cooperation: While Hobbes is often seen as a pessimistic realist, a careful reading of his work reveals that he believed peace and cooperation were possible. In Leviathan, Hobbes proposes that peace can be achieved through the establishment of a social contract, where individuals agree to surrender some of their freedoms to a powerful authority (a “Leviathan”) in exchange for security. Applied to international relations, this could be interpreted as a justification for the establishment of international organizations or alliances to promote peace and reduce the risks of conflict.

3. Key Differences and Similarities

Aspect	Niccolò Machiavelli	Thomas Hobbes
Core Work	The Prince (1513)	Leviathan (1651)
View of Human Nature	Humans are ambitious, self-serving, and power-hungry.	Humans are selfish, nasty, and brutish.
Primary Focus	Rulers and Statecraft	State of Nature and Society
Anarchy	Implicit (focus on internal instability)	Explicit (international anarchy)
Power	Power as a means to survival and order.	Power as necessary for security and survival.
Means-End Justification	Ends justify the means (immoral actions permissible)	Power is justified as a means for security.
Possibility of Peace	No clear scope for peace; survival is paramount.	Cooperation possible through social contract.
Relevance to Realism	Separation of politics from morality, power politics.	Anarchy, human nature, and the security dilemma.

4. Influence on Realist Thinkers

Hans Morgenthau: Both Machiavelli’s emphasis on power politics and Hobbes’ views on human nature influenced Morgenthau’s six principles of realism. Morgenthau agreed with Hobbes that human nature is selfish, and he drew from Machiavelli’s concept of power as the central force in politics.
Kenneth Waltz: While Waltz moved away from classical realism’s focus on human nature, he embraced Hobbes’ idea of anarchy in international relations as the structural condition that drives state behavior. Waltz’s neorealism is centered on the concept of anarchy at the international level.
Henry Kissinger: Kissinger, a practitioner of realpolitik, drew from Machiavelli’s pragmatic approach to power, emphasizing the need for strategic flexibility and deception in diplomacy.

Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes are two of the most important forerunners of realist theory in international relations. Machiavelli’s emphasis on power, survival, and pragmatic rule shaped the ideas of classical realists like Hans Morgenthau. Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature, anarchy, and the “war of all against all” was later adapted into the foundation of neorealism by Kenneth Waltz.

While Machiavelli focused on internal politics and leadership, Hobbes explored the dynamics of human nature and international anarchy, offering insights into the structure of the global system. Together, they laid the groundwork for the development of realism, with their ideas still influencing modern international relations, particularly in theories related to power, conflict, and the security dilemma.

E.H. Carr: Father of Realist Critique of Idealism

Edward Hallett (E.H.) Carr, a British historian, diplomat, and political theorist, is regarded as a pivotal figure in the development of realism in international relations (IR). His landmark work, “The Twenty Years’ Crisis” (1939), launched a powerful critique of liberal idealism, which had dominated international thought after World War I. Carr’s work laid the intellectual foundation for the emergence of realism as a dominant paradigm in IR.

1. The Context: Rise of Realism vs. Decline of Idealism

The development of realism in IR can be traced through four major “generations” of thinkers:

First Generation: Interwar and wartime realists, led by E.H. Carr and Reinhold Niebuhr.
Second Generation: Early Cold War realists like Hans Morgenthau and Raymond Aron.
Third Generation: Détente realists, including Kenneth Waltz and Robert Gilpin.
Fourth Generation: Post-Cold War realists such as John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Charles Glaser.

Carr belongs to the first generation of realist scholars, marking the shift from idealism to realism. Following World War I, liberal idealists believed that international cooperation, multilateralism, and the establishment of institutions like the League of Nations could prevent future wars. Prominent idealists included figures like Woodrow Wilson, Philip Noel-Baker, and Alfred Zimmern, as well as Indian leaders Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru.

Idealism promoted the idea that war resulted from faulty political and social conditions, not human nature, and that war could be eliminated through international law, moral norms, and institutions. However, with the outbreak of World War II in 1939, these assumptions were discredited, as international institutions failed to prevent conflict. This shift paved the way for the rise of realism, with Carr at the forefront of this intellectual transformation.

2. Carr’s Critique of Idealism

In “The Twenty Years’ Crisis” (1939), Carr launched a comprehensive critique of liberal idealism, accusing idealist thinkers of being naive, utopian, and delusional. He argued that idealism was based on wishful thinking, ignoring the realities of power politics. According to Carr, international order could not be built solely on moral principles; instead, it required the recognition and accommodation of power and interests.

Key Criticisms of Idealism

Morality is Relative, Not Universal:
Carr argued that morality in international relations is not universal but relative to the distribution of power. He believed that strong powers frame morality to suit their interests, while weaker states have little say in defining moral principles. This view directly challenged the idealist notion of a universal moral order governing international relations.
Power Over Morality:
Carr emphasized that power, not morality, maintains order in the world. He argued that appeals to moral principles often mask the self-interest of powerful states. For instance, during the interwar period, British and American calls for “peace” were, according to Carr, a reflection of their desire to preserve their dominance in the world order. He famously stated, “Morality is the product of power.”
Impracticality of Universal Justice:
Idealists believed that justice could be achieved through diplomacy, respect for international law, and multilateral cooperation. Carr rejected this, asserting that in an anarchic world, states prioritize their survival and self-interest. Justice, he argued, is only possible among equals, and since states are unequal in power, the stronger will always dominate the weaker.
Failure of the League of Nations:
Carr highlighted the failure of the League of Nations as evidence of the flaws in idealism. He argued that the League was a utopian project that failed to address the realities of power asymmetry between nations. While the League was intended to promote cooperation and prevent war, it lacked the enforcement power needed to confront aggressive states like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Criticism of American and British Policy:
Carr was critical of Western policymakers, particularly British and American elites, for their idealistic reliance on diplomacy and morality while ignoring the importance of power. He argued that power is indispensable for maintaining order in the international system.

3. Carr’s Core Concepts of Realism

E.H. Carr did not reject idealism entirely. Instead, he recognized that both realism and idealism are necessary for a balanced approach to international relations. However, he argued that when power and morality clash, states prioritize power in their decision-making.

Key Principles of Carr’s Realism

The Role of Power:
Power is the central force in international politics. While moral and ethical considerations may play a role, Carr argued that in situations of conflict, states prioritize power. He described international relations as a world of conflict and competition where states act in their self-interest.
Dual Role of Utopianism and Realism:
Carr did not advocate for pure realism. Instead, he saw realism and idealism as two sides of the same coin. He argued that utopian ideas (ideals) are necessary to inspire change and progress, but these ideals must be grounded in realism. Carr proposed a synthesis of realism and idealism, where states pursue moral goals but are still aware of the constraints of power.
Relative Morality:
According to Carr, morality in international politics is not universal but is shaped by the interests of powerful states. For example, great powers define “justice” to suit their own strategic interests. This relative view of morality is consistent with the realist belief that norms and laws are products of power.
Primacy of National Interest:
Realists, including Carr, believe that states act to maximize their national interest. He argued that states are not driven by ideals of global justice or collective security but by self-interest and power maximization.
International Anarchy:
Carr acknowledged the anarchic nature of the international system, where there is no overarching authority to enforce rules or norms. He asserted that, in the absence of a world government, states must rely on self-help to survive and protect their interests. This concept would later be expanded by Kenneth Waltz in his theory of neorealism.

4. Influence of E.H. Carr on Realism

Carr’s work served as a bridge between early realist thinkers like Niccolò Machiavelli and later classical realists like Hans Morgenthau. His analysis of power, morality, and the limitations of idealism inspired the development of classical realism and contributed to the broader realist tradition in international relations.

Key Areas of Influence

Hans Morgenthau: Morgenthau’s six principles of realism, particularly the emphasis on human nature and power, were heavily influenced by Carr’s ideas on morality and power.
Kenneth Waltz: Waltz, a neorealist, drew from Carr’s concept of international anarchy, which sees the absence of a global authority as a defining feature of the international system.
Critique of Liberalism: Carr’s critique of liberal idealism remains relevant today, particularly in critiques of modern liberal approaches to global governance and interventionism.

E.H. Carr was a key figure in the development of realist thought in international relations. His critique of idealism and his emphasis on the role of power and self-interest in global politics shaped the realist tradition, influencing the works of thinkers like Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz. Carr rejected the idea that moral principles were universal, arguing instead that morality is relative and shaped by power. His call for a balance between realism and utopianism remains a key consideration in contemporary discussions on global governance, power politics, and international order.

Carr’s work continues to influence debates on the nature of international relations, particularly on issues like power asymmetry, moral relativism, and the role of international institutions. His assertion that “power, not morality, maintains order” remains a defining principle of realist theory in the modern world.

Hans J. Morgenthau: The Architect of Classical Realism

Hans J. Morgenthau is widely regarded as the most prominent figure in the development of classical realism in international relations (IR). While E.H. Carr laid the groundwork for realism by critiquing idealism, it was Morgenthau who transformed realism into a comprehensive theoretical framework. His 1948 masterpiece, “Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace”, remains one of the most influential works in the realist tradition.

Morgenthau’s realist philosophy is rooted in his belief in the timeless and unchanging nature of human nature, where the human desire for power drives conflict and competition. His personal experiences as a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany shaped his anti-totalitarian views and his critique of weak foreign policies rooted in idealism.

Realism and the Human Condition

Morgenthau believed that human nature is inherently driven by a lust for power. Drawing inspiration from Thomas Hobbes and Reinhold Niebuhr, he argued that people, and by extension states, have an inborn desire to dominate others. Since human nature does not change, the nature of politics and power struggles also remain constant.

Morgenthau viewed international politics as a perpetual struggle for power. Unlike idealists, who believed that war could be eliminated through the spread of law, morality, and cooperation, Morgenthau maintained that conflict was inevitable due to the egoistic and power-driven nature of human beings. This perspective echoed the ideas of Hobbes’ “state of nature”, where the absence of a central authority leads to anarchy and competition.

Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Political Realism

Morgenthau’s theory of realism is best captured through his famous six principles outlined in Politics Among Nations. These principles established the core tenets of classical realism and continue to shape modern IR theory.

1. Politics is Governed by Objective Laws Rooted in Human Nature

Morgenthau argued that the principles of politics are not temporary or context-dependent; they are timeless and rooted in human nature. Human beings are driven by a desire for power, which makes the struggle for power a constant feature of international relations. Because human nature does not change, political laws are also constant, allowing scholars to develop objective theories of international politics.

2. Interest is Defined in Terms of Power

The concept of “interest defined in terms of power” is the cornerstone of Morgenthau’s realism. He argued that, in politics, states do not act on moral principles or abstract ideals but pursue their national interest, which is understood in terms of power. This power could be military, economic, or diplomatic. The actions of states, regardless of ideology or government type, are guided by their interests.

3. The Definition of Power Can Change Over Time

Although Morgenthau emphasized the primacy of power, he also acknowledged that the specific forms and nature of power may change over time. For instance, in certain historical periods, military power was paramount, while in others, economic or technological power took precedence. Nevertheless, the constant pursuit of power remains unchanged.

4. Realism Acknowledges the Role of Morality, But Not Universal Morality

While Morgenthau accepted that moral principles could play a role in politics, he emphasized that moral norms are relative, not universal. He argued that what one nation sees as morally just might not be seen the same way by others. States operate in an anarchic system where morality is subordinate to survival. As a result, moral ideals must be tempered by political necessity.

5. There is a Difference Between the Moral Aspirations of States and Universal Morality

While domestic politics may be governed by ethical norms, international politics operates in a system of anarchy. States cannot afford to prioritize universal moral values over their national interest. Morgenthau contended that idealists, such as those who advocated for the League of Nations, failed to recognize this distinction. Power politics, not morality, defines state behavior in the international system.

6. The Autonomy of the Political Sphere

Morgenthau argued that politics is an autonomous realm with its own distinct logic, separate from economics, morality, or law. While morality, economics, and religion influence human actions, politics must be viewed through the lens of power and interest. Political leaders, according to Morgenthau, should make decisions based on political necessity rather than moral principles, religious dogma, or economic interests.

The Ethical Dimension of Morgenthau’s Realism

Although Morgenthau is often portrayed as a hardline realist focused on power, his views on ethics have been misunderstood. He did not advocate for complete moral relativism or an amoral approach to politics. Instead, Morgenthau acknowledged the role of morality but argued that it must be balanced with power and national interest.

Ethical Realism vs. Pure Realism

While pure realism focuses solely on power politics, Morgenthau called for a blend of realism and ethics. He believed that leaders should not abandon moral considerations but should recognize the limits of morality in the anarchic international system. In his later years, he criticized the growing tendency in U.S. foreign policy to adopt “realism without ethics.”

Morgenthau’s Criticism of U.S. Foreign Policy

By the 1960s, Morgenthau grew critical of how American foreign policy applied realism. He argued that U.S. policymakers had taken realism to an extreme, ignoring the ethical considerations that he believed were essential to responsible leadership. His discontent was especially evident in his opposition to the U.S. intervention in Vietnam.

Morgenthau argued that American policymakers were over-relying on power and military force without considering the ethical dimensions of their actions. He criticized the U.S. for attempting to impose its ideology on other nations, arguing that such actions were destined to fail. For Morgenthau, realism without ethics leads to the abuse of power.

Influence and Legacy of Hans Morgenthau

Morgenthau’s work had a profound impact on the development of classical realism and its successor theories, such as neorealism. His emphasis on power, national interest, and human nature remains central to modern IR theory. His ideas continue to shape debates on foreign policy, war, and diplomacy.

Influence on Later Realist Thinkers

Kenneth Waltz (Neorealism): While Waltz agreed with Morgenthau’s emphasis on anarchy and power, he shifted the focus from human nature to the structure of the international system as the driver of state behavior.
John Mearsheimer (Offensive Realism): Mearsheimer built on Morgenthau’s ideas, arguing that states do not merely seek to survive but actively seek to maximize power.
Henry Kissinger (Pragmatic Realism): Kissinger, as a statesman and scholar, drew on Morgenthau’s emphasis on power and diplomacy, advocating for pragmatic policies guided by balance-of-power logic.

Criticisms of Morgenthau’s Realism

Pessimistic View of Human Nature: Critics argue that Morgenthau’s assumption of a perpetual human lust for power is overly pessimistic and ignores the possibility of cooperation and progress in human affairs.
Overemphasis on Power Politics: Critics believe that Morgenthau’s focus on power ignores other important factors in international politics, such as economic interdependence, institutions, and identity politics.
Neglect of Ethical and Moral Considerations: Some argue that Morgenthau’s realism legitimizes immoral actions under the guise of “national interest”. However, this criticism overlooks Morgenthau’s own insistence on maintaining a balance between power and morality.

Hans Morgenthau is regarded as the father of classical realism in IR. He moved beyond E.H. Carr’s critique of idealism to establish a systematic theory of realism. His six principles emphasize the timeless nature of human self-interest and the quest for power, which drive state behavior. While Morgenthau accepted that morality has a place in politics, he warned that in the face of anarchy, power must take precedence.

However, Morgenthau’s legacy is more nuanced than is often acknowledged. He advocated for a realism with ethics, opposing the idea that foreign policy should be guided solely by raw power. His critique of U.S. intervention in Vietnam reflects his belief that unchecked realism could lead to moral decay and strategic failure. Today, his ideas remain fundamental to understanding power, interest, and morality in the international arena.

Morgenthau’s ideas remain essential to students of IR theory, diplomacy, and foreign policy analysis. His message is clear: while power is essential, it must be tempered by moral responsibility.

Neo-Realism or Structural Realism

Neo-realism, also known as structural realism, represents a major shift from classical realism by incorporating the methods and language of modern social sciences. While classical realists like Hans Morgenthau emphasized human nature as the root cause of conflict, neo-realists shifted the focus to the structure of the international system. This transformation was driven by the rise of behavioralism in the 1950s and 1960s, which aimed to make International Relations (IR) more scientific, empirical, and objective.

During this period, scholars began to introduce new research methods like game theory and quantitative analysis, moving away from the normative, philosophical approach of classical realism. By the 1970s, changes in the global political landscape, such as the détente between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and the emergence of new actors like the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and international economic institutions, challenged traditional realist notions of power. This shift created room for pluralist and liberal theories to re-enter the academic debate.

It was in this context that Kenneth Waltz published his groundbreaking book, “Theory of International Politics” (1979), which laid the foundation for neo-realism. Waltz’s work redefined realism, borrowing heavily from concepts in microeconomics and establishing a systematic, structural approach to international relations.

1. Core Principles of Neo-Realism

1.1. Structure of the International System

At the heart of Waltz’s theory is the idea that the structure of the international system determines state behavior. He argued that, similar to the market structure in economics, international relations operate in an environment where there is no central authority to enforce rules or maintain order. This absence of a global government leads to anarchy, which becomes the defining feature of the international system.

Waltz described anarchy as a self-help system where each state is responsible for its own survival. Unlike classical realism, which highlights human nature as the cause of conflict, neo-realism attributes conflict to the anarchic structure of the international system. The lack of a central authority compels states to seek power and security, often at the expense of others.

1.2. States as Rational, Unitary Actors

Neo-realism treats states as rational and unitary actors. Regardless of their internal characteristics (like ideology, government type, or culture), states behave in a similar manner because they all face the same structural pressures in an anarchic system. This marks a significant departure from classical realism, which considers domestic politics as an important factor in shaping state behavior.

Waltz emphasized that states perform the same basic function—survival. This functional similarity among states means that the only difference between them is their relative power or capabilities. For example, while both the U.S. and smaller states like Bhutan are concerned with survival, the relative capability of each state influences how well they can achieve this goal.

1.3. Distribution of Capabilities (Polarity of the System)

Waltz argued that the distribution of power (referred to as polarity) in the international system determines the behavior of states. He identified three possible system structures:

Unipolarity: One dominant power (e.g., the post-Cold War U.S.-led system).
Bipolarity: Two dominant powers (e.g., the U.S.-USSR Cold War system).
Multipolarity: Several powers competing for dominance (e.g., pre-World War I Europe).

According to Waltz, bipolarity is more stable than multipolarity because it limits uncertainty and miscalculation. In a bipolar system, two great powers balance each other, reducing the likelihood of war. By contrast, in a multipolar system, multiple powers create more uncertainty, increasing the chances of miscalculation and conflict.

1.4. Relative Gains vs. Absolute Gains

Another key concept in neo-realism is the focus on relative gains rather than absolute gains. In cooperative ventures, classical liberals argue that all states can benefit (absolute gains). However, neo-realists argue that states are not only concerned with how much they gain but also how much they gain relative to others.

This concern with relative gains makes cooperation difficult. If one state gains more than another, it might pose a future threat, even if both states technically “win.” For instance, in arms control agreements, if a rival state is perceived to be gaining more, the other state will be reluctant to cooperate, fearing a future power imbalance. This fear of being left behind drives the security dilemma, where states feel compelled to arm themselves, leading to arms races.

1.5. Cooperation Under Anarchy

While classical realists are skeptical of international cooperation, neo-realists offer a more nuanced view. Waltz acknowledges that states can cooperate under anarchy, but such cooperation is limited by two main factors:

Insecurity: States are unsure of each other’s intentions.
Relative Gains: States fear that others will gain more from cooperation, which may leave them worse off in the future.

These two factors explain why arms control agreements are so difficult to achieve. Even if all parties agree on arms reduction, the inability to verify compliance and ensure relative balance means that states will often hedge their bets, leading to the collapse of negotiations.

2. Neo-Realism and the Cold War

The Cold War rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union is often seen as a classic example of structural realism at work. Neo-realists argue that the conflict was not driven by ideological differences (communism vs. capitalism) but by the bipolar structure of the international system.

Case Study: U.S.-Soviet Relations

Initial Rivalry: After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the U.S. remained hostile to the USSR, but ideological differences alone did not cause conflict.
World War II Cooperation: Despite ideological differences, the U.S. and the USSR cooperated during World War II to counter their common enemy, Nazi Germany.
Cold War: After the war, with the common enemy defeated, structural pressures of a bipolar system led the U.S. and the USSR to view each other as threats.

According to neo-realists, this shift from cooperation to confrontation was not a result of ideological changes but a result of the logic of bipolarity. In a bipolar system, each superpower is compelled to balance against the other, which naturally led to the emergence of the Cold War.

3. Key Differences: Classical Realism vs. Neo-Realism

Criteria	Classical Realism	Neo-Realism (Structural Realism)
Cause of Conflict	Human Nature (Greed, Lust for Power)	Structure of the System (Anarchy)
Focus	Human nature and leadership	Systemic forces and structure
Unit of Analysis	State, Leaders, Domestic Factors	International System (Anarchy)
Role of Morality	Morality plays a role in decisions	Morality is irrelevant in anarchy
Anarchy	Recognized, but not the core cause	Core concept of the system
Nature of Power	Power as domination	Power as capability
Cooperation	Highly skeptical of cooperation	Possible, but limited by anarchy

4. Criticisms of Neo-Realism

Overemphasis on Structure: Critics argue that domestic factors, ideas, and leaders’ choices play a larger role in international relations than Waltz suggests.
Neglect of Non-State Actors: Neo-realism largely ignores the role of international institutions, NGOs, and non-state actors.
Too Rigid and Deterministic: Critics argue that structural realism is too deterministic, assuming that states have no agency and are merely products of systemic pressures.
Limited View of Cooperation: Neo-realists are often criticized for underestimating the ability of states to achieve sustained cooperation through international institutions.

Neo-realism, or structural realism, offered a scientific, system-focused approach to the study of international relations. By shifting the focus from human nature to the anarchic structure of the international system, Kenneth Waltz redefined the realist tradition. His insights on anarchy, relative gains, and bipolarity continue to shape debates on great power competition, arms races, and security dilemmas. Despite criticism, structural realism remains a cornerstone of IR theory, especially in understanding conflicts like the Cold War and contemporary U.S.-China relations.

Defensive and Offensive Realism

Defensive Realism

Defensive realism is a school of thought within the broader framework of structural realism (neo-realism). It addresses the question of how much power is enough for a state. While offensive realists believe that states seek to maximize power and strive for hegemony, defensive realists argue that states aim for security, not domination. Key proponents of defensive realism include Kenneth Waltz, Jack Snyder, and Stephen Van Evera.

Core Principles of Defensive Realism

States Seek Security, Not Hegemony
Defensive realists argue that security is the ultimate goal of states, not unchecked power or hegemony. States do not need to maximize their power but rather seek an “appropriate amount of power” to ensure survival. This view opposes the offensive realist belief that states are inherently power-hungry. Defensive realists believe that excessive power-seeking can actually undermine a state’s own security.
Balancing Promotes Stability
Defensive realists emphasize that the balancing of power among states creates a stable international system. If any one state seeks too much power or pursues hegemony, other states will balance against it, creating a countervailing coalition. This limits the potential for any one state to dominate the system. The idea of balancing explains how states collectively ensure a relatively stable order in an anarchic system.
Costs of Conquest Outweigh the Benefits
Unlike offensive realists, defensive realists argue that conquest does not pay. Attempts at conquest and expansion are costly and risky. Defensive realists highlight factors like nationalism and the resistance of local populations to foreign rule, which make conquest more difficult. The cost of suppressing resistance often outweighs the benefits of conquest, thereby discouraging states from pursuing expansionist policies.
Survival Over Aggression
Defensive realists believe that excessive power accumulation is counterproductive. If a state seeks too much power, it risks provoking a balancing coalition of rival states, thereby threatening its own survival. For example, when Nazi Germany sought hegemony in Europe, it triggered a coalition of the U.S., Britain, and the Soviet Union, which eventually led to its downfall. Similarly, if a state avoids threatening others, it can preserve its survival without facing counterbalancing alliances.

Offensive Realism

Offensive realism is another branch of structural realism that takes a more aggressive view of state behavior. John Mearsheimer, in his famous book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” (2001), is the leading advocate of this approach. Offensive realism builds on the ideas of Kenneth Waltz’s neo-realism but diverges in its assessment of state motivations. While defensive realists argue that states seek sufficient power to ensure survival, offensive realists contend that states aim for maximum power and hegemony.

Core Principles of Offensive Realism

States Seek Hegemony, Not Just Security
Unlike defensive realists, offensive realists argue that hegemony is the ultimate goal of states. Mearsheimer claims that states seek to become the most powerful actor in the system to eliminate any potential threats. He argues that a state cannot be certain about the future intentions of other states, so it is rational for a state to maximize its power preemptively to avoid vulnerability. This leads to constant competition for power.
Balancing is Often Inefficient
While defensive realists emphasize the stabilizing effect of balancing, offensive realists argue that balancing often fails to prevent aggression. States that face a potential threat may choose to “buck-pass”—avoiding direct confrontation with an adversary and relying on other states to check the aggressor. This allows aggressor states to exploit division among their opponents.
Initiators of War Often Win
Offensive realists believe that in many cases, the side that initiates a war often emerges victorious. History shows that aggressors frequently achieve their aims, especially if they strike before others have time to balance against them. For example, Nazi Germany achieved rapid victories during the early stages of World War II because Britain and France pursued appeasement rather than balancing.
Example of U.S. Hegemony
Mearsheimer points to the example of the United States’ rise to hegemony in the Western Hemisphere during the 19th century. Through the Monroe Doctrine and U.S. dominance over Latin America, the U.S. effectively eliminated European influence from the Western Hemisphere. This example illustrates how states seek regional hegemony as a first step toward global hegemony, according to offensive realists.

Key Differences: Defensive vs. Offensive Realism

Criteria	Defensive Realism	Offensive Realism
Main Proponents	Kenneth Waltz, Jack Snyder, Stephen Van Evera	John Mearsheimer
Goal of States	Security and survival (sufficient power)	Hegemony (maximum power)
View on Power	Power is limited by balancing and costs of war	States constantly seek to maximize power
Role of Balancing	Balancing maintains stability and deters aggression	Balancing often fails due to buck-passing
Cooperation	Possible when power is balanced	Cooperation is unlikely due to constant competition
Nature of Conflict	States fight only to ensure survival	States initiate war to increase power
Conquest	Conquest is costly and rarely pays	Conquest can be beneficial if well-timed
Example	Cold War (stable bipolar system)	U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere

Case Studies

Case 1: World War II

Defensive Realist View: Germany’s pursuit of hegemony provoked balancing from the U.S., Britain, and the USSR, leading to its eventual defeat. If Germany had not sought excessive power, it might have survived as a major power.
Offensive Realist View: Germany pursued power rationally to dominate Europe, but it failed due to miscalculation. If Britain and France had engaged in buck-passing, Germany might have succeeded.

Case 2: The Cold War

Defensive Realist View: The Cold War was a case of stable bipolarity. The U.S. and USSR balanced each other, and neither side sought total hegemony. The defensive realist approach explains why the Cold War remained a period of “cold” confrontation rather than outright war.
Offensive Realist View: Both the U.S. and USSR sought global dominance, and their desire for hegemony led to proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Latin America. The U.S. achieved regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere while attempting to block Soviet expansion elsewhere.

Case 3: U.S.-China Rivalry

Defensive Realist View: China’s rise does not necessarily mean conflict with the U.S. If China seeks limited power for survival, balancing coalitions (like AUKUS and Quad) will deter Chinese aggression.
Offensive Realist View: China’s rise is inherently revisionist, and it will aim to dominate Asia, just as the U.S. did in the Western Hemisphere. Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. should actively contain China’s rise to prevent it from achieving hegemony.

Summary of Key Points

Theory	Goal of States	Nature of Power	View on Balancing	Example
Defensive Realism	Security, not hegemony	Seek only enough power to survive	Balancing promotes stability	Cold War, balancing against Nazi Germany
Offensive Realism	Hegemony (maximum power)	Seek power to dominate rivals	Balancing often fails	U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere

Defensive and offensive realism provide two distinct perspectives on state behavior in international politics. Defensive realism sees states as security-seekers who avoid excessive power, as it provokes balancing and increases costs. In contrast, offensive realism views states as power-maximizers who constantly seek dominance and hegemony. Both perspectives offer valuable insights, but they diverge in their assumptions about state motivations and the nature of conflict. While defensive realism emphasizes stability and restraint, offensive realism highlights aggression and power competition as the defining features of the international system.

Assessment of Realism in International Relations

The development of International Relations (IR) as a discipline is closely linked to the rise of realism as its most prominent theoretical framework. Despite its shortcomings and criticisms, realism has remained the most influential approach in IR, shaping not only policy decisions but also other theoretical perspectives within the field.

Criticisms of Realism

Overemphasis on Human Nature: One of the most common critiques of realism is its pessimistic view of human nature. Realism portrays humans as inherently selfish, power-seeking, and driven by fear and survival, an idea rooted in the writings of Thomas Hobbes. Critics argue that this view is too extreme and reductionist, as it overlooks the potential for human cooperation, trust, and altruism.
Failure to Explain Peace and Cooperation: While realism focuses on conflict and power struggles, it fails to adequately explain why peace and cooperation exist between states. For instance, the enduring peace among members of the European Union (EU) contradicts the realist assumption that states are always in competition. In response, neoliberal institutionalists like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye argue that “complex interdependence” better reflects modern global politics. They highlight the role of economic interdependence, multilateral institutions, and non-state actors in promoting peaceful cooperation.
Rise of Non-State Actors: Realism’s focus on the state as the primary unit of analysis is often criticized for being state-centric. Critics argue that non-state actors such as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), and terrorist groups have become crucial players in modern global politics. For instance, groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS are capable of influencing international security and shaping the foreign policies of major powers. Realism struggles to account for the role of such actors, as its framework is designed to analyze state-to-state relations.
Failure to Address New Threats: Realism’s emphasis on military and power politics limits its ability to address non-traditional security threats such as climate change, cyber warfare, and terrorism. These issues are not confined to state boundaries and cannot be resolved through traditional state-centric approaches. For instance, climate change affects all states, regardless of power, and demands global cooperation. Realism’s focus on self-help and national interest leaves little room for understanding the collective action required to combat global problems.
Inability to Predict Key Events (e.g., Fall of the USSR): Realism’s inability to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War is often cited as a major flaw. Realists view states as rational actors focused on survival and self-interest. However, the internal revolts and civil uprisings in Soviet republics like Lithuania, Estonia, and Ukraine demonstrated how the actions of ordinary citizens and civil society can undermine even the most powerful states. Realism failed to account for the role of domestic factors and identity-based grievances, which played a crucial role in the USSR’s collapse.
Limited Perspective on Justice, Gender, and Ethics: Critical perspectives such as feminism and constructivism challenge realism’s narrow focus on material power and survival. Feminist theorists like J. Ann Tickner argue that traditional realism ignores the role of women and marginalized groups in global politics. Feminists aim to highlight the role of women as peacebuilders, mediators, and key actors in maintaining international security. Moreover, constructivist theorists like Alexander Wendt criticize realism’s focus on material power and individualistic motives, arguing instead that norms, identities, and social structures shape the behavior of states. Constructivism explains how identity and ideology influence state action, in contrast to the materialist assumptions of realism.

Alternative Theoretical Perspectives

Neoliberalism
- Response to Realism: Neoliberals accept the realist assumption of anarchy but emphasize that cooperation is possible through international institutions, norms, and economic interdependence.
- Key Proponents: Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye.
- Key Concepts: Complex interdependence (multiple channels of interaction) and the role of international institutions (like the United Nations) in promoting global governance and cooperation.
Constructivism
- Response to Realism: Constructivists reject realism’s focus on material power, instead emphasizing the role of ideas, norms, and social identities in shaping international relations.
- Key Proponents: Alexander Wendt and Nicholas Onuf.
- Key Concepts: The social construction of identity and the notion that international politics is shaped by shared ideas and norms rather than only material forces.
Feminism
- Response to Realism: Feminists argue that realism ignores the role of women in global politics and overlooks issues like gender-based violence and the role of women as peacebuilders.
- Key Proponents: J. Ann Tickner.
- Key Concepts: The gendered nature of power and the need to bring feminist perspectives to the study of international politics.
Critical Theory
- Response to Realism: Critical theorists challenge the assumptions of traditional IR theories, arguing that inequality, social injustice, and exclusion are ignored in the dominant frameworks of realism and liberalism.
- Key Proponents: Robert Cox and Andrew Linklater.
- Key Concepts: Emancipation and the critique of power structures that perpetuate global inequality.

Contributions of Realism

Despite its limitations, realism remains relevant in the study of IR due to its pragmatic insights. It serves as a cautionary reminder for policymakers to remain grounded in reality rather than being overly idealistic. Realism’s emphasis on power and national interest helps leaders recognize the risks of relying too heavily on morality or altruism in foreign policy. For instance, the failure of appeasement policies toward Nazi Germany is often cited as a cautionary tale against ignoring power dynamics in global politics.

Balancing Criticism and Contributions

Criticisms of Realism	Contributions of Realism
Extreme view of human nature	Emphasizes the importance of self-interest and survival in state behavior.
Failure to explain cooperation	Offers insights on the importance of power and deterrence in preventing conflict.
Ignores role of non-state actors	Focus on state-centric analysis has shaped foreign policy and national security doctrines.
Failure to predict Cold War end	Stresses the role of power in politics, offering a clear framework for decision-making.
Limited response to new threats	Serves as a warning against utopian thinking in international affairs.
Exclusion of feminist perspectives	Recognizes the role of power asymmetry and the idea of “self-help” in global security.

Conclusion

Realism continues to be one of the most important theories in the field of International Relations. While its state-centric, materialist, and power-focused approach faces significant criticisms, it provides a realistic and pragmatic lens for analyzing international politics. Realism offers cautionary lessons about power, competition, and survival, particularly in times of geopolitical uncertainty. However, its failure to address issues like climate change, non-state actors, and human rights underscores the need for new approaches like neoliberalism, constructivism, and feminism. The most effective IR frameworks are likely to combine insights from multiple perspectives. While realism teaches policymakers to remain cautious and pragmatic, alternative perspectives offer a broader and more inclusive vision of world politics.

In sum, realism is neither obsolete nor absolute. It remains a vital tool in the policymaker’s toolkit, but its limitations demand that it be used alongside other approaches to provide a holistic understanding of world affairs.

References

Aron, Raymond. (1966). Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. Translated by Richard Howard and Annette Baker Fox. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
Bell, Duncan. (2017). Realism. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/realism-political-and-social-science
Bell, Duncan (ed.). (2008). Political Thought in International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carr, E. H. (1946). The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Donnelly, Jack. (2005). Realism. In Andrew Linklater et al. (eds.), Theories of International Relations (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Gilpin, Robert G. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian. (2017). Political Realism in International Relations. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Mearsheimer, John J. (2016). Structural Realism. In Tim Dunne et al. (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J. (1960). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (3rd ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. (1932). Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Thucydides. (1954). History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner. London: Penguin Books.
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wohlforth, William C. (2008). Realism. In Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Table of Contents