Realism Flashcards
What is the key concept discussed in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War?
Balance of power
What are the two main focuses of Thucydides’ text?
Power politics
Relevance to classical realism and realist theory of IR
What are the two understandings of international relations (IR) mentioned?
- Actors act purposefully based on rational cost-benefit analysis
- Actors are driven by beliefs and ideologies
What does the Melian Dialogue illustrate about power dynamics?
Those with power must rule and demand unconditional submission
What was Thucydides’ explanation for the cause of the Peloponnesian War?
The growth of the Athenians to greatness brought fear to the Spartans
What is the eternal law regarding the balance of power?
It prevents the rise of a single over-powerful state through shifting alliances
War is triggered when this balance is disturbed by a rising power challenging a status quo power
What is power politics according to Thucydides?
International relations are governed by the ability of states to use force to achieve objectives
What are the key principles of classical realism as stated by Hans J Morgenthau?
- Objective laws govern actions derived from human nature
- States should act in terms of interests defined as power
What does Morgenthau argue about morally based politics?
They usually serve to disguise and legitimise true national interests
What does Thucydides reveal about power in international relations?
Power is always transitory (temporary) in IR
What is the significance of Thucydides’ lessons in contemporary issues?
They help make sense of cultural differences, war, and other modern problems
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Key arguments
- The tragic nature of politics
- Dual morality
- The ethics of responsibility vs moral perfectionism
- Moral illusions in IR
- The lust for power (animus dominandi)
- The corruption of morality by the state
- The tragic necessity of evil in politics
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Key argument - The tragic nature of politics
- politics is inherently evil because it is a struggle for power and this leads to moral compromise
- states treat other states as means to security or power (alliances, deterrence)
- all political actions aim to acquire, maintain or demonstrate power, which is the essence of realism
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Key argument - dual morality
- there is a misguided belief in separate moral standards for individuals and states - Morgenthau rejects this
- what is unethical for individuals is justified when done for the state (e.g., lying, killing) creates a dual morality
= Realist IR often recognises this pragmatically but Morgenthau warns against legitimising it - There is one moral law, but political action inevitably deviates from it due to the demands of power
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Key argument - The Ethics of Responsibility vs Moral Perfectionism
- There’s a conflict between:
1. Acting successfully in politics (requiring power, strategy)
2. Acting ethically - The statesman must act with moral judgment
= This reflects the realist principle that idealism is dangerous in global politics - Morgenthau critiques leaders who attempt to apply pure moral ideals (like justice or democracy) to foreign policy - this is naïve and potentially harmful
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Key argument - Moral Illusions in International Relations
- Utilitarianism and Idealism both distort moral clarity in IR
- Utilitarianism: Assumes that success = morality, but Morgenthau critiques this
- Idealism: Assumes politics can align perfectly with morality. Morgenthau argues this denies the reality of conflicting interests
- Example in IR: Liberal institutionalists believe in international law and norms as tools of peace; Morgenthau would argue these ignore underlying power struggles
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Key argument - The Lust for Power (Animus Dominandi)
- The will to dominate is a permanent feature of human nature, and therefore, of international politics
- Unlike basic needs (e.g., food or shelter), power has no natural limit. States pursue power endlessly
- Example: Arms races (e.g., U.S. and USSR)
- Because political action seeks power, it is inherently ethically compromised
- Morgenthau’s realism thus sees politics not as immoral by accident, but by necessity.
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Key argument - The Corruption of Morality by the State
- Individuals are discouraged from seeking personal power but are encouraged to pursue it on behalf of the state - this is relabelled as patriotism.
- This masks the reality of power politics
- This echoes realism’s skepticism of states claiming to act morally. Realists argue states pursue their national interest, often cloaked in moral language.
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Key argument - The Tragic Necessity of Evil in Politics
- Politics requires moral compromise: To act politically is to engage with evil. Total moral purity in IR is impossible
- The ethical response is to: Recognise the evil, have the moral courage to act anyway, use judgement to choose the lesser evil
- Realists must avoid utopianism. Instead of eliminating evil, they must manage it, e.g., through the balance of power, deterrence, or diplomacy
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
“Man is…”
“…a political animal by nature”
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
“Man acts differently in…”
“…the private sphere because ethics allows him to act differently”
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Strengths
- Ethics of Responsibility
- Power as an enduring feature of human nature and political life
- The critique of moral illusions and political idealism
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Strengths - Ethics of Responsibility in Realism
- He acknowledges the inevitability of evil in political action and insists that statesmen must have the moral courage to choose the lesser evil
- Morgenthau deepens realism’s contribution to IR by recognising the moral dilemma rather than simply discarding ethics altogether
- Liberalism and neoliberalism place greater faith in international cooperation and moral progress, assuming that ethical norms can be upheld across borders
- He offers a framework for ethical decision-making in an immoral system, showing that realist ethics is not moral nihilism, but a tragic ethics based on restraint and judgement
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Strengths - Power as an Enduring Feature of Human Nature and Political Life
- Morgenthau’s claim that the lust for power is a permanent feature of human nature forms the psychological and anthropological foundation of classical realism
= he shows that the desire for power is limitless and thus unavoidably shapes politics - This grounds realism’s central claim that international politics is a struggle for power, not cooperation
- Morgenthau’s emphasis on human nature provides a critical tool for understanding why states pursue power even when it appears irrational or destabilising
- Neorealism ignores human nature, attributing power-seeking behaviour to systemic pressures alone — this is reductive
- By identifying the timeless role of power rooted in human nature, Morgenthau explains the continuity of conflict across history, offering a universal realism other theories neglect
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Strengths - The Critique of Moral Illusions and Political Idealism
- Morgenthau exposes the dangers of moral idealism, showing how perfectionist ethics (like Wilsonian liberalism) often result in politically disastrous foreign policies
- This critique explains why idealist or liberal approaches often fail - they misread the nature of the international system, and assume that moral intentions can produce good outcomes
Morgenthau offers a realist corrective to the naivety of liberal internationalism.
- This brings awareness to the gap between moral intention and political reality, offering a necessary counterweight to moral utopianism and idealism that has repeatedly failed in world politics
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Weaknesses
- Overemphasis on human nature
- Pessimistic determinism blocks normative progress
- Neglect of economic and structural power
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Weaknesses - Overemphasis on human nature
- Assumes power politics is driven by unchanging human nature
- This essentialism is critiqued by:
1. Neorealists: argue that it is the international system (anarchy), not human nature, that compels states to seek power
2. Constructivists: identities, interests, and norms are socially constructed, not fixed - This overlooks:
1. Changes in international behaviour over time (e.g. increased cooperation)
2. How social environments and institutions shape state conduct. - This oversimplifies state motivations and limits potential for normative evolution or institutional influence in global politics
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Weaknesses - Pessimistic Determinism Blocks Normative Progress
- Morgenthau argues that moral failure is inevitable and evil is inescapable in politics
- Liberalism and neoliberalism reject this, proposing:
1. States can be rationally restained through institutions, law, and interdependence.
2. The English School adds that order and justice can coexist in international society.
This overlooks:
- Evidence of norm development (e.g. human rights regimes, international law).
- Successful cooperation and moral progress post-WWII (e.g. UN, EU).
- Leads to fatalism, ignoring agency and the possibility of ethical action in IR
- Undermines theoretical frameworks that aim to explain peaceful change
“The Evil of Politics and the Ethics of Evil” - Morgenthau
Weaknesses - Neglect of Economic & Structural Power
- Morgenthau focuses exclusively on political power, ignoring:
1. Economic structures
2. Discursive and identity-based power - Marxism critiques this for ignoring global inequality and capitalist domination
- Securitisation theory critiques the lack of attention to how language, discourse, and identity produce power and threats
This overlooks:
- The role of economic systems in shaping IR (e.g. global South dependency).
- The way non-material factors (e.g. Islamophobia, gendered security) influence global politics
- This leads to an overly state-centric and materialist view, missing broader sources and forms of power
- Ignores the growing relevance of non-traditional security threats
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Historical Context
- The Melian Dialogue takes place during the Peloponnesian War
- Athens went on to conduct a military expedition against Melos, a neutral island
- Heated relationship between Athens and Sparta
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
The Melian Dialogue
- The dialogue is marked by the Athenians’ pragmatic and ruthless realpolitik approach
- Considerations of morality are secondary to the harsh realities of power and survival
- The Melians appeal to justice and hope for support from external powers (idealism vs realism)
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Ruthlessness and Realpolitik
- The Athenians insistence on subjugating Melos highlights the brutal aspects of imperialism and ruthlessness in warfare
= Melos’ binary choice of annihilation or surrender - The dialogue emphasises that in the realm of power politics, principles of justice are sidelined by practical considerations of survival
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Consequences of the dialogue
- The eventual otucome = Melos surrendering and facing dire consequences - illustrates the brutality of war
- The Athenians’ follow-through - executing all men and enslaving women and children - acts as a commentary on the nature of power and domination
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Philosophical implications
- The Melian Dialogue is often cited as a foundational text reflecting the tensions between moral principles and political realities in IR
- Poses questions about the nature of justice, responsibilities of power and the implications of imperial ambitions
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
“Those in positions of power do…”
“…what their power permits, while the weak have no choice but to accept it”
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
“Justice is only…”
“…a factor…when the parties are on equal footing”
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
“Surrender…”
“…or be obliterated”
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Strengths
- Emphasis on state sovereignty and survival
- Power dynamics and balance of power
- Self interest over ideals
- Nature of war and conflict
- Realpolitik and strategic decision making
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Strength - emphasis on state sovereignty and survival
- Underscores the centrality of the state as the primary actor in IR and its ultimate priority: survival
- Athens’ insistence on subjugating Melos highlights that when confronted with power imbalances, the states’ existence is paramount
= reflects realist belief that states will act primarily to ensure their own survival and autonomy
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Strength - power dynamics and balance of power
- highlights the importance of power dynamics
- illustrates that the ability of a state to use force or coercion against another is foundational to achieving and maintaining power
= power distribution influences interactions
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Strength - self interest over ideals
- the dialogue demonstrates the realist principle of self-interest
- The Athenians prioritise their tactical advantage, displaying that states will act in their own interests, often at the expense of ethical norms
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Strength - Nature of war and conflict
- TMD presents war as an inevitable outcome of the struggle for power, reflecting the realist perspective that conflict is natural in IR
- serves as a reminder that power struggles frequently lead to war and weaker states must be wary of the intentions of stronger states
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Strength - Realpolitik and strategic decision making
- Thucydides’ depiction of the negotiations illustrates realpolitik (a practical and strategic approach to decision-making that prioritises power over principles)
- The Athenian calculation of the Melians’ responses reflects how states make decisions based on an assessment of power relations and gains vs losses rather than adherence to moral obligations
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Weaknesses
- Overemphasis on the state as the sole actor
- Liberalism
- Constructivism
- Marxism
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Weakness - Overemphasis on the state as the sole actor
- TMD predominantly portrays the state as the primary unit of analysis, neglecting influence of non-state actors, international organisations and transnational issues
- this narrow focus diminishes the complexity of IR, where economic, social and ideological factors play substantial roles
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Weakness - Liberalism
- Liberals argue that TMD overlooks the potential for cooperation and the role of international institutions in mitigating conflict
- They emphasise the importance of building institutions that foster interdependence and collaborative solutions to shared problems
- Would advocate for diplomacy and negotiation, and states can achieve lasting peace through institutions rather than ruthlessness
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Weakness - constructivism
- Challenges the notion that state behaviour is solely driven by self-interest and power dynamics
- Identities, norms and values shape state actions - TMD neglects how societal beliefs influence political outcomes
- States are not only power-seeking but motivated by norms of justice
“On Ruthlessness: The Melian Dialogue” - Thucydides
Weakness - Marxism
- TMD overlooks the economic structures underpinning state actions
- Doesn’t account for how class struggle and economic interests shape IR - state actions reflect capitalist exploitation
- Instead of viewing power as purely state-centric, they emphasise the importance of understanding global economic systems and the impacts of imperialism and colonialism in shaping the motivations and actions of states
What is the security dilemma?
- Concept by John Herz
- States improve own security relative to others by accumulating power resources -> other states can’t know if the actions are defensive or offensive, so they are forced to secure themselves
- Results in security dilemma
- Results in nuclear arms race
Why do states show similar foreign policy behaviour despite different political systems and ideologies?
The fundamental structure of the international system applies to all actors and guides their behaviour
(This is the main assumption of neorealism)
The structural realist argument
- Independent variable: system structure - anarchy; distribution of capabilities
- Mechanism: quest for power and security
- Dependent variable: behaviour of states
Polarity
Unipolar world - 1 power dominating all others. Considered unstable
Bipolar - 2 great powers. Stable
Multipolar - several great powers sharing the power. Unstable
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Key arguments
- Power politics and anarchy
- The security dilemma
- Human nature and state behaviour
- Hegemonic stability theory
- Pragmatism over idealism
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Key argument - Power politics and anarchy
- International politics is inherently anarchic - no central authority exists to enforce rules or maintain order, leading states to prioritise their own security and interests
- anarchy compels states to behave competitively, resulting in conflict rather than cooperation
- states operate in a self-help system; survival is the principal goal, driving states to accumulate power
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Key argument - the security dilemma
- this is where the measures one state takes to ensure its own security (EG military build-up) can inadvertently threaten other states, prompting them to respond similarly
- this creates an environment where trust is minimal, and misunderstanding can lead to conflicts
- this further reinforces his claim that institutions are ineffective at mitigating these aspects of state behaviour
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Key argument - Human nature and state behaviour
- Mearsheimer suggests that the aggressive tendencies of humans are reflected in state behaviour
- the desire for power and security is deeply embedded in both human psychology and the nature of states, resulting in a pattern of conflict that institutions cannot resolve
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Key argument - Hegemonic stability theory
- Mearsheimer discusses the concept of hegemony, indicating that periods of stability and peace are often associated with the dominance of a single powerful state
- Such hegemony can provide a form of order but he recognises that this is temporary and always subject to challenge from rising powers
- He warns against the over-reliance on international institutions, which do not alter the underlying power dynamics favouring stronger states over weaker ones
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Key argument - pragmatism over idealism
- Mearsheimer adopts a pragmatic approach to IR, advising policymakers to recognise the limitations of institutions and the realities of power politics
- Calls for the consideration of the persistent role of military power and national interests
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
“Institutions are so highly regarded by…”
“…policymakers and academics, when there is so little evidence that they are an important cause of peace”
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
“Realists maintain that institutions are…”
“…basically a reflection of the distribution of power in the world”
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
“The most powerful states in the system create and shape…”
“…institutions so that they can maintain their share of world power, or even increase it”
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
“The balance of power is the…”
“…independent variable that explains war; institutions are merely an intervening variable in the process”
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Strengths
- Emphasis on relative gains
- Realism as a lens for understanding change
- Critique of institutionalism
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Strength - Emphasis on relative gains
- focus on relative gains as a primary motivator for state behaviour
- unlike many institutionalist perspectives, he argues that states are concerned with their position relative to others
- this insight is unique and generalisable across different historical and geopolitical contexts, as it highlights a consistent pattern of state behaviour driven by power dynamics
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Strength - realism as a lens for understanding change
- Mearsheimer effectively uses realism to explain the variance in institutional effectiveness across different historical eras
- He contextualises the emergence and decline of institutions within the broader power dynamics of IR
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Strength - Critique of institutionalism
- His argument is strengthened by a critique of the empirical basis supporting institutionalism
- He identifies a lack of substantial evidence demonstrating that institutions can significantly alter state preferences or behaviour
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Weaknesses
- Overemphasis on military power and security
- Neglect of non-state actors
- Underestimating the role of international institutions
- Pessimistic view of human nature
- Simplistic dichotomy of actors and interests
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Weakness - overemphasis on military power and security
Liberalism
- His focus on military power and security as the driving factors of state behaviour may overlook other significant factors influencing IR (EG economic interdependence, environmental issues and transnational challenges)
- Liberalism argues that states increasingly engage in cooperation for mutual economic benefit, recognising that trade and interdependence can lead to peace
- by focusing on security, Mearsheimer may miss how economic ties and international institutions facilitate cooperation in non-security domains (EG human rights and environmental protection)
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Weakness - neglect of non-state actors
Constructivism
- focus on the state as the primary actors neglects the role of non-state actors (EG international organisations, multinational corporations)
- Constructivism highlights that IR is also shaped by identities and norms which can influence state behaviour and promote cooperation beyond military concerns
- this limits realism’s explanatory power in understanding contemporary global issues, where non-state actors often play critical roles (EG climate change and negotiations)
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Weakness - Underestimating the role of international institutions
Neoliberalism
- his view that institutions have minimal impact on state behaviour underestimates their capacity to facilitate cooperation even among states with competing interests
- Neoliberal institutionalism argues that institutions can provide frameworks for cooperation, even amid anarchy - they facilitate communication and make compliance easier through enforcement mechanisms
- downplaying these aspects leads to Mearsheimer’s argument being overly deterministic about state behaviour
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Weakness - pessimistic view of human nature
- his framework is grounded in a pessimistic view of human nature, drawing on the idea that states are perpetually self-interested and power-seeking
= deterministic in suggesting that conflict and competition are inevitable
“The False Promise of International Institutions” - Mearsheimer
Weakness - simplistic dichotomy of actors and interests
Constructivism
- Mearsheimer’s realist framework relies on a simplified dichotomy of states as rational actors pursuing power through competition and threat perception
- this oversimplification overlooks the complexities of decision-making processes and the varied interests of states which can be influenced by domestic policies, historical contexts and individual leaders’ philosophies
- Constructivism emphasises the role of ideas, beliefs and identity in shaping state interest and behaviour
= states do not have inherent interests but rather socially constructed ones that can evolve through interactions and norms
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Fundamental concepts of Realism
- Human nature:
- Human beings are innately power-seeking and driven by selfish motivations
- suggests that conflict is inherent to human nature and, by extension, IR
- Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau argue that human beings possess a lust for power, leading to a persistent struggle for dominance among states - Anarchy:
- International system lacks a central authority to enforce rules
- States operate in a self help system where they must prioritise their own survival and interests over those of other states - State-centrism:
- Realism view the state as the primary actor in international politics
- assumes that states are rational entities, acting in their own interests, and that the international arena is a theatre of competition among these self-interested states
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Beliefs about IR
- Power politics:
- Realism emphasises the role of power in international politics
- states are motivated by national interest, and interactions among states are characterised by competition and conflict over scarce resources and power - Interests over morality:
- IR is not governed by ethical considerations but rather by the pursuit of power and security - Realism’s pessimistic view:
- they adopt a cynical perspective on IR, consistently wary that states are likely to engage in conflict
- despite efforts towards cooperation, underlying competitive instincts will prevail
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
War and causes of war
- Inevitability of war:
- war is an inevitable aspect of IR, stemming from the aggressive tendencies of states anf the anarchic structure of the international system - Human nature as a source of conflict:
- The belief that flawed human nature drives state behaviour to seek power contributes to an understanding of why wars occur - Structural causes:
- Neorealists (EG Waltz) argue that the international system’s anarchic structure compels states to arm themselves and engage in competitive behaviour, leading to cyclical patterns of conflict
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Balance of power
Realists argue that states seek to maintain equilibrium by forming alliances, increasing military capabilities or engaging in wars when they perceive that a rival has gained excessive power
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Different branches of realism
- Classical realism:
- focuses on human nature as a central factor in IR
- emphasises the importance of national interest and moral considerations in power politics - Neorealism:
- the structure of the international system is the primary force shaping state behaviour
- categories into two further strands
2.1. Defensive realism:
- states seek security and are inclined to pursuit a status quo strategy
2.2. Offensive realism:
- States are inherently aggressive and eek to maximise power as a strategy for survival
- Neoclassical Realism:
- state behaviour is affected by both international pressures and internal political dynamics
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
“Because the desire for more power is rooted in…”
“…the flawed nature of humanity, states are continuously engaged in a struggle to increase their capabilities”
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
“Lust…”
“…for power”
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
“The international system…”
“…is anarchic”
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
“Self…”
“…-help system”
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
“Pursuit of…”
“…power”
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Strengths
- Emphasis on power dynamics
- Insight into anarchy and self-help
- Understanding war and conflict
- Foundation for policy formation
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Strength - emphasis on power politics
- realism highlights the importance of power as a central currency in IR
- this focus allows analysts to better understand state behaviour and interactions patterns during conflicts
- By recognising that states act primarily out of a desire to protect their power, policymakers can anticipate actions based on historical and current power dynamics
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Strength - insight into anarchy and self-help
- Realism’s depiction of the international system as anarchi provides a framework for analysing why states may enagge in aggressive behaviour or form alliances
- this understanding is relevant in dissecting the habitual practices of states during crises, such as arms races, shedding light on hwy states often prioritise military capabilities and securit alliances
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Strength - understanding war and conflict
- Realism’s focus on the inevitability of conflict (rooted in human nature and anarchy) allows predictions and interpretations of the causes of war more effectively
- by framing wars as outcomes of power struggles, realists contribute significantly to theories of conflict resolution and international security strategies
= this guides efforts to mitigate tensions before they escalate into greater conflict
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Strength - foundation for policy formation
- Realism provides a pragmatic basis for IR policy making
- By prioritising national interest and security, realist principles help states navigate complex global issues without succumbing to overly idealistic or moralistic narratives that could jeopardise national interests
- this pragmatic approach aids in the formulation of foreign policy that is mindful of global power dynamics
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Weaknesses
- Overemphasis on state-centrism
- Neglect of ideational factors
- Limited explanatory power for peacemaking
- Inability to address change in the international system
- Reductionist view of war and security
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Weakness - overemphasis on state-centrism
- realism predominantly focuses on states as the primary actors in the international system, overlooking the significant role that non-state actors (EG MNCs, NGOs, terrorist groups) play in shaping global politics
- This narrow focus diminishes our understanding of how these entities influence state behaviour, norms and conflict resolution
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Weakness - neglect of ideational factors
Constructivism
- Realism underestimates the importance of ideas, beliefs and identities in shaping IR
- constructivist approaches highlight that state behaviour is also driven by social constructs and ideational factors such a s a nationalism and ideology, not just material factors
- this limits realism’s ability to analyse phenomena such as ethnic conflicts and the impact of identity politics on state interaction
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Weakness - limited explanatory power for peacemaking
Liberalism
- Realism’s inherent pessimism about human nature and the inevitability of conflict may lead to a neglect of potential pathways to peace
- Liberal theories that emphasise institutions and interdependence present ways for how states can collaborate to address shared challenges, which realism fails to acknowledge
- Neoliberalism argues that international institutions can mitigate anarchy through established norms which realism often dismisses as ineffective
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Weakness - inability to address change in the international system
- Realism’s strict adherence to its foundational premise - such as the perpetual pursuit of power in an anarchic system - makes it less equipped to explain significant shifts in the international order, such as the end of the Cold War
- These events exemplify how changes in global dynamics, including economic cooperation and the proliferation of international norms, can emerge outside of the traditional realist framework
- Realism’s static view of power relations makes it less adaptable to the evolving nature of international politics
“The Realism Reader” - Colin Elman
Weakness - reductionist view of war and security
- tends to reduce the complexities of war to simplistic notions of power struggle and competition
- this reductionist view overlooks the multifaceted causes of conflict, including economic factors, political grievances and social dynamics
- post-structuralist theories (which explore how language and discourse shape power relations and influence conflict), provide alternatives that account for the underlying causes of war beyond mere power considerations
