Classical Realism &

UNIT 7 CLASSICAL REALISM AND NEO- Neorealism

REALISM*
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Basic Assumptions of Realism
7.3 Classical Realism
7.3.1 Thucydides
7.3.2 Kautilya
7.3.3 Machiavelli and Hobbes
7.3.4 E H Carr
7.3.5 Morgenthau
7.4 Neo-Realism or Structural Realism
7.4.1 Differences between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism
7.4.2 Defensive Realism
7.4.3 Offensive Realism
7.5 Assessment
7.6 Let Us Sum Up
7.7 References
7.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

7.0 OBJECTIVES
Realism has been one of the dominant perspectives in international relations
since the Second World War. This unit would shed light on Realist perspective in
international politics. After studying this unit, you should be able to:
Explain the meaning of Classical and Neo-Realism
Know the difference between these two perspectives
Describe major thinkers associated with them and
Analyze some of the limitations of Classical and Neo-Realism

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Realism has been one of the main theoretical perspectives in international relations
which gained prominence after the Second World War and continues to remain
relevant even in the globalized world of 21st century. As the name suggests,
Realism explains the reality of international politics (what is), in contrast to Idealist
school of thought which focuses on ‘what ought to be’. Thus, as Morgenthau has
claimed, realism is an empirical paradigm rather than being a normative one.
Realism explains the status quo in international relations, how the order is
established and maintained. The wider acceptance of realism is because of its
ability to explain why states compete and go to war in international relations.
Since the signing of Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, there have been over 200 wars

*
Dr Raj Kumar Sharma, Consultant, Faculty of Political Science, IGNOU, New Delhi
103
Theoretical Perspectives and conflicts. in international system. Realism is often also called study of power
politics as it gives centrality to power in its analysis of international politics.
However, there are many variants of Realism. In fact, it is best to describe realism
as a set of theories which give importance to factors like national interest, state
and military in world politics. It should be mentioned that apart from political
thinkers, rulers, diplomats, military strategists and generals have also contributed
to growth of realism as a theoretical tradition. The names include military theorist
and Prussian general Carl Von Clausewitz, French diplomat Charles Maurice de
Talleyrand-Perigord, Austrian statesman Klemens von Matternich, former French
President Charles de Gaulle and former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.
Realism has never been a single theory, however, in all its variants, there is
centrality of power and military means that states try to achieve through their
policies. Realism in general, is pessimistic about the chances of radical reform
in international system. There is close relationship between Realism and security
studies as both of them study conflict, war and survival. Charles Darwin’s ‘survival
of the fittest’ is echoed in international politics by theory of realism. Mainly
three distinct schools of thought exist in realism, namely, classical, neo-realism
or structural realism and neo-classical realism. This unit would discuss classical
and neo-realism in detail.

7.2 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF REALISM

Realism is an academic approach to study international relations which is not a
single, unified theory. As Jonathan Haslam points out in his No Virtue Like
Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations since Machiavelli (2002),
realism is a spectrum of ideas rather than as a fixed point of focus with sharp
definition. Duncan Bell has argued that Realism is possibly best defined in
negative terms – in what realists reject instead of what they endorse in positive
terms. Realists are united in their collective rejection of morality or ethics in
international politics. They would go on to argue that justice does not operate in
international relations since they are marked by potential or active competition
and conflict among different states. Irrespective of the differences in various
strands of realist theories, most of them share some core beliefs and assumptions
which are below.

Realists believe that states are primary actors in international relations and
hence, they try to explain behavior of states while giving less importance to
other factors.

International relations are mainly a study of power and security as survival

of state is paramount. This is why; states build their hard power (military
power). Realism also accepts a distinction between matters of high politics
and low politics. High politics includes the areas that are necessary for
survival of a state like security. Areas of low politics like trade and social
affairs are the ones which are not absolutely necessary for survival of a
state.

Human nature is dominated by ego and like humans, groups and states also
have an ego. Politically, states are rational actors which are driven by their
narrow self-interest. Moral and ethical considerations make way to raison
d’état or reasons of state – a situation in which a state’s foreign policy is
justified on the basis that its national interest is of utmost importance.
104
 There is lack of government in international relations leading to anarchy. Classical Realism &
Neorealism
This means there is no authority to protect interests of the global community
and ensure rule of law at the global level. The possibility of moral behavior
rests upon the existence of an effective government that can deter and punish
illegal actions. Hence, states need to rely on themselves to safeguard their
national interest.

To ensure their survival, states resort to balance of power (BoP). BoP does
not allow a single state to gain so much military power that it can dictate
terms to other countries. Balancing is of two types – external and internal.
External balancing is done through building alliances while internal balancing
is done by enhancing one’s own military power. For instance, India has been
balancing China through both, internal and external measures. India is
building its military strength on one hand while on the other, it is building
close relations with countries like the US, Japan and France to balance China.

Under anarchic international relations, there exists a security dilemma or

spiral mode. The steps taken by one country to enhance its own security
would decrease the security of other states. In such zero-sum situation, it is
difficult for any state to improve its own survival without threatening the
survival of other states. The threatened states then would take steps to increase
their own security and this ends up in a perpetual competitive cycle.
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What do you understand by Security Dilemma?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

7.3 CLASSICAL REALISM

Classical realism has emerged as a major approach in the study of international
relations after the Second World War. This approach is mainly reflected in the
writings of E H Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau. Classical realism
explains state behaviour from vantage point of human nature and holds human
nature responsible for conflicts among states. However, even before realism
existed as a theory, its tenets can be found in Western and non-Western political
thinkers from ancient to medieval period. In an informal manner, tenets of realism
can be traced to the works of ancient Greek philosopher, Thucydides in the 5th
century BC. The other prominent realist thinkers in the West include Machiavelli
and Hobbes. There have been non-Western thinkers like Kautilya from India and
Sun Tzu and Han Feizi from China whose views would fall under the realist
paradigm in international politics. Some of the main thinkers in classical realism
are discussed below.
105
Theoretical Perspectives 7.3.1 Thucydides
Views of Thucydides, Athenian historian and general in 5th century BC, are very
often seen as the starting point of realist school in international politics. As a
participant in the war between Delian League (led by Athens) and Peloponnesian
League (led by Sparta), Thucydides wrote his experiences in a collection of eight
books called History of the Peloponnesian War. Some of the prominent realist
conceptions are reflected in his book which has prompted realists to claim that
Thucydides was a realist. One of the central ideas echoed by Thucydides is that
the strong should rule the weak as they have the power to do so. This was an
articulation of politics based on power. In the words of Thucydides, “The strong
do what they can; the weak suffer what they must”. In book 5, Thucydides covers
the Melian Dialogue which is a dramatised version of conversation between
Athenians and representatives from Melos (a small island which tried to be neutral
in the Peloponnesian war). The Melians represent the idealist thought compared
to the realist, strategic and pragmatic Athenians. When Melians resort to ideals
of morality and justice while facing an invasion from Athens, Athenians argue
that the powerful have a right to rule the weak (might is right) and independent
states can survive only if they are powerful enough to protect their independence.
They also say that justice can only exist between equals not between unequals.
The moral of the dialogue is that whenever there is power imbalance between
two sides, the stronger would assert itself as per its own interests. This is human
nature.

Around the same time, a similar and radical view of justice had been expressed
by Thrasymachus, a Sophist and a renowned teacher of rhetoric. In Plato’s
Republic, Thrasymachus, just like Thucydides, has defined justice as the interest
of the stronger. According to realist thinker Robert Gilpin, Thucydides is a realist
as he argued that men are motivated by honour, greed and fear. Other values like
beauty, goodness and truth will be lost unless there are provisions for one’s security
in the power struggle among social groups.

7.3.2 Kautilya
Despite having intrinsic theoretical value in international politics, Kautilya’s
famous work, Arthashastra has been largely ignored not only in India but outside
as well which reflects the Eurocentric view of international relations. Kautilya
can be easily considered as the pre-modern founding father of theory of Political
Realism. Roger Boesche in his book The First Great Realist: Kautilya and His
Arthashastra (2002) has argued that Kautilya was the first great, unrelenting
political realist. Max Weber saw no role for any type of ideology in Arthashastra
and talked about Kautilya’s trained ability to relentlessly gaze at realities of life.
Supremacy of national interest, anarchic nature of inter-state relations and
centrality of power in international politics are some of the ideas that are clearly
reflected in Arthashastra. Classic realist, Morgenthau identifies ancient political
philosophy from Greece, China and India as the starting point of his theory. The
methods discussed by him to maintain a favourable balance of power include
divide and rule, compensation, armaments and alliances which are similar to
four upayas given by Kautilya. Henry Kissinger saw Kautilya as a combination
of Machiavelli and Clausewitz. Another important point is that Arthashastra is
generally perceived as a realist treatise but it is very often forgotten that
Arthashastra frequently uses the word dharma which stands for morality or
106
righteousness. It is not possible for a text not to have normative and moral Classical Realism &
Neorealism
foundations which cites dharma as part of governance and daily life. Kautilya’s
approach comes out as a holistic mix of idealism and realism.

7.3.3 Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes

Italian diplomat and philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli (15the century) and English
philosopher Thomas Hobbes (16th century) too used realism and pragmatism as
a backdrop in expressing their views. Machiavelli was born at a time when values
like virtue and ethics were seen as an integral part of politics and inter-state
relations. He ushered in modernity by changing this belief and separated politics
from ethics and morality. He went on to say that all means (immoral and moral)
are justified to attain certain political ends and it’s the ends that justify means.
Since the Greek Sophists, such rejection of morality had not been seen in Europe.
In the 15th chapter of his book, The Prince, he refers to the effective truth – the
reality that is felt and experienced opposed to imagined and utopian truth of
Christians and Greeks. During his life, Machiavelli saw instability and wars and
through his book, The Prince, advised the King to maintain power, order and
stability. Survival of the state is the main theme of his work as he says that the
state has no higher duty than of maintaining itself. Primacy of state and its survival
is one of the main tenets of realist approach in IR.

Like Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes did not focus on international relations. But
his book Leviathan had a deep impact on Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau
and Neo-realist, Kenneth Waltz. Hobbes was part of the intellectual thinking
that wanted to break the tradition of classical political philosophy. Idealism was
part of this philosophy which believes that individuals are rational and moral
having the capability to distinguish between right and wrong. Hobbes refutes
this claim saying human beings are selfish, egoistic, nasty and brutish who are
restless to acquire power until they die. He referred to the hypothetical situation
of ‘state of nature’ in which individuals stayed before societies were formed. It
was a situation in which there was no government to protect individuals and
everyone has a right to everything. They attack each other for gain and to secure
themselves, can invade others pre-emptively. It is a situation of war of all against
all. Hobbes has said that such a state of nature also exists among all the
independent nations at all times. This leads to anarchy at international level in
absence of a world government. Views of Hobbes on human nature, anarchy in
international relations and power politics became important pillars of realist
tradition. However, a careful reading of Hobbes reveals that his approach to
international relations is pacifist and he envisioned that cooperation and peace
were possible in international politics.

7.3.4 E H Carr
The realist approach can be categorized in four main generations. First, the
interwar and wartime generation represented by E H Carr and Reinhold Niebuhr.
Second, the post-war and early Cold War generation that includes Hans
Morgenthau and Raymond Aron. Third is the detente generation represented by
Kenneth Waltz and Robert Gilpin. The last, post-cold war generation has names
like John Mearsheimer, Steven Walt and Charles Glaser. Led by E H Carr, British
historian and diplomat, realism emerged as an approach in IR in response to
liberal idealist approach that dominated international studies and policy after the
First World War. The realists vs idealists debate is often described as the first 107
Theoretical Perspectives great debate in IR, however, some scholars negate these claims. Idealists or the
Liberal Internationalists argued that conflict can be averted by international
institutions and respect for international law. Some of the famous idealists include
British politician and Nobel laureate Philip Noel Baker, former US President
Woodrow Wilson and British academic Alfred Zimmern. From India, Mahatma
Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru too had an idealist approach to international politics.
Idealism, in general sense, is an idea that is impractical, too perfect to be true.
Idealists in IR focused on growing interdependence, unity of human beings and
establishing multilateral platforms like the League of Nations. They argued that
war was not the result of imperfect human nature but faulty political and social
conditions which can be improved. However, with the outbreak of the Second
World War in 1939, the idealist approach to IR lost acceptance. In his book, The
Twenty Years Crisis (1939), E H Carr launched an academic attack on the idealists,
calling them deluded and dangerous. He argued that morality is not universal but
relative. He highlighted the importance of power by saying that order is achieved
through power not morality. In words of Carr, morality is product of power. He
was therefore critical of the British and the American intellectuals and statesmen
for ignoring the role of power in international politics. He argued that states care
greatly but not exclusively about power. He rejected pure realism and recognised
that there is an idealist dimension to international relations but in case of a conflict
between power and ideals, states choose power in policy making.

7.3.5 Hans Morgenthau

E H Carr did not intend to explain the theory of realism and instead, he was more
interested in giving a critical analysis of idealism and undermines its influence.
The credit for expanding realism into a theoretical perspective goes to Hans J
Morgenthau, a realist from early Cold War period. Morgenthau was a Jew who
reached the US as a refugee having faced fascism in Germany. Due to his personal
experiences, he was strongly against totalitarianism and weak foreign policy
methods to deal with such tendencies as reflected in idealist approach to IR.
Morgenthau was influenced by Niebuhr and Hobbes and argued that the human
desire to dominate is the main cause of conflict. In his 1948 book, Politics Among
Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Morgenthau proclaimed that
international politics is a struggle for power. American writings on international
politics before the Second World War neglected importance of national power.
Morgenthau’s views on realism can be understood through his six principles of
political realism as explained below.
Politics is governed by objective laws which have their roots in unchanging
human nature.
Realism perceives the world through the concept of ‘interest defined in terms
of power’.
Universally, interest is to be defined in terms of power; however, its meaning
and interest may change.
Realism is a perspective which is aware of moral importance of political
action.
Moral aspirations of a community or state may not find universal acceptance.
As a tradition of thought, realism was distinct in its focus on the autonomy
of the political realm and the decisions made within it.
108
However, there has been a selective reading of Morgenthau as the ethical Classical Realism &
Neorealism
dimension of his thought has remained neglected which he considered equally
important. By mid-1960s, Morgenthau was convinced that the lesson of realism
had been overlearned in the US. He argued that realism minus ethical
considerations was the reason behind American intervention in Vietnam and that
is why; he opposed this move in American foreign policy.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) Discuss E H Carr’s critique of idealism?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

7.4 NEO-REALISM OR STRUCTURAL REALISM

Neo-realism attempted to transform classical realism with application of methods
and language of modern social sciences. It was impact of behaviouralism that
attempts were made to use concepts of science and reasoning in IR theory to
replace the normative approach used by classic realists like Morgenthau. In 1950s
and 1960s, scholars from diverse backgrounds came to study IR and new research
methods like game theory and quantitative research began to creep in the study
of international relations. Moreover, in the 1970s, the detente between the US
and Soviet Union led to a decline in tensions between the two superpowers. At
the same, new actors like the Non-alignment movement, international economic
institutions and other non-governmental organisations emerged as prominent
actors in international politics. As a result of these developments, pluralism and
liberalism once again began to gain influence in the international studies. It is in
this context that Kenneth Waltz wrote his book, Theory of International Politics
(1979). In this book which was greatly influenced by theories and models of
microeconomics, Waltz addressed the defects of classical realism. Drawing a
parallel between the market and international relations, Waltz agued that they
both operate without any defined order. States are like firms in a domestic market
and the primary aim of both (state and firm) is to survive through competition in
a system where self-help is the rule.

Neo-realism explains why states despite variation in their internal factors behave
in similar ways and why the notion of interdependence is not going to succeed in
international politics. Similar behaviour of states is due to the structure of
international relations which is anarchic in nature. Absence of any central authority
in international politics leads to anarchy which is the ordering principle in IR.
Anarchy and egoism impede cooperation between states. States are the primary
units in the international system and each unit performs the same function of
survival. Hence, there is no functional differentiation between the units. In an
anarchic system, each unit (state) performs the same function of survival. In 109
Theoretical Perspectives such a scenario, their relative capability (power) becomes important to perform
the same function. A more powerful state has more chances to survive. According
to Waltz, there are two main factors which impede cooperation in anarchic
international system – insecurity and relative gains. Every state remains concerned
about the intentions of the other state leading to insecurity. For instance, since
arms control agreements cannot be independently verified, states would engage
in costly arms race. A state would also consider whether its own gains under
interdependence outweigh those of the others. This would limit the possibility of
cooperation. Analysing the nature of America-Soviet Union relations, neo-realists
would argue that the US opposed the Russian Revolution and remained hostile
to USSR for two decades after it. However, Nazi Germany under Hitler emerged
as a common enemy and despite their internal (ideological) differences and history
of enmity; both the US and the USSR cooperated against the common enemy.
After the Second World War, both the superpowers again became adversaries
leading to the Cold War. The rivalry between the two countries was induced by
the structure of international politics and not their domestic factors (although
they may have intensified it). In a bipolar system, both powers see each other as
a threat and would balance against each other. Hence, the Cold War was a natural
result of bipolarity.

7.4.1 Differences between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism

The differences between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism are explained below.

The first difference pertains to the question – why states want power?
According to the classic realists, the answer is human nature. They would
argue that great powers are led by individuals who want to accumulate power
and have their state dominate its rivals. Neo-realism traces it to the structure
of international system. In an anarchical international system, states cannot
trust each other’s intentions and it makes sense for them to be powerful
enough to protect themselves in case they are attacked. Neo-realism is also
called structural realism as it gives central importance to the anarchical
structure of international politics.

Second, for classic realists, power is an end in itself while for the neo-realists,
power is a means to an end and the ultimate end for a state is survival.

Third, neo-realism followed a different methodology as it relied on methods

drawn from microeconomics. It, therefore, claims to be more systematic
and scientific than classic realism. Neo-realism was influenced by the
behaviouralist revolution of the 1960s while classic realism is based on
subjective interpretation of international politics.

7.4.2 Defensive Realism

There are differences within structural realists on how much power is enough for
a state. There are two views on this question. The first one is given by the defensive
realists and the main proponents include Kenneth Waltz, Jack Snyder and Stephen
Van Evera. Defensive realists argue that since states want security, it is possible
to have an international equilibrium that is stable through balancing. They reject
the argument of offensive realists that states seek hegemony and say that it is
strategically foolish to pursue hegemony. States want an appropriate amount of
power, not hegemony due to a number of factors. First, if any state becomes too
110
powerful, other states will balance against it. Second, conquest is feasible but it Classical Realism &
Neorealism
would not pay as its costs outweigh the benefits. Due to nationalism, it is difficult
to subdue the conquered. These factors would limit the appetite for power of a
state, otherwise, they risk threatening their own survival.

7.4.3 Offensive Realism

John Mearsheimer in his The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), has
portrayed offensive realism as the successor to Kenneth Waltz’s neo-realism. He
argues that states seek to maximize power instead of security. States constantly
seek opportunities to maximise their power and hegemony is their ultimate goal.
This makes it harder to achieve equilibrium in international politics through
balancing. Offensive realists argue that often, balancing is inefficient which allows
an aggressor to take advantage of its adversaries. Threatened states sometimes
resort to buck passing instead of joining a coalition against an adversary. This
means that they remain on the sidelines while depending on other states to check
the potential adversary. Such behaviour encourages aggression. Offensive realists
have also argued that more often than not, history shows that a side that initiates
war wins. Hegemony may be difficult to achieve but the US had gained hegemony
in the western hemisphere in 19th century.
Check Your Progress Exercise 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What are the differences between classical realism and neo-realism?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

2) Explain the differences between defensive and offensive realism.

.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

7.5 ASSESSMENT
The rise of international relations as a discipline and realist approach to IR has
been synonymous with each other. With all its shortcomings, realism has been
the most dominant theory in IR which has profoundly influenced the other
approaches in the discipline. Critics have argued that realism takes an extreme
view of human nature by treating humans as selfish and nasty. Realism would
111
Theoretical Perspectives fail to explain why peace and cooperation exists between various states.
Responding to neo-realism, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye have given their
concept of complex interdependence. They have argued that complex
interdependence is closer to reality of world politics than realism. Further, they
state that states are not the only actors in international politics and there is presence
of multinational corporations and international non-governmental organizations
which connect societies. Neo-liberals have accepted that the international system
is anarchic but they do not believe it will lead to conflict and emphasis centrality
of cooperation in international politics. Realism would not have predicted the
fall of Soviet Union and the end of Cold War as it gives more focus to state as a
unit and ignores certain actions of citizens that can threaten the survival of a
state. One of the main reasons for the fall of USSR was that in many of its
republics, citizens revolted against the Soviet leadership and demanded freedom
and independence. Realist approach does not address the new threats to a state –
climate change and terrorism. Terrorist groups like the Islamic State or Al Qaeda
are also called non-state actors and realism does not have much to say about
non-state actors. Critical perspective has challenged the inequality and injustice
in IR and raised issues that are often ignored by mainstream theories like realism.
For instance, feminists have argued that the role of women in creating and
sustaining international politics has remained on the fringes and feminist approach
tries to analyze international politics from the eyes of women. J N Tickner’s
critique of Morgenthau has been discussed in Unit 10 of this course. Contrary to
materialist and individualist interpretation of IR given by realism, constructivism
gives more importance to ideational factors like norms, rules and identity. They
argue that identity is socially constructed. Instead of focusing on distribution of
power, constructivism gives importance to distribution of identities. Despite all
the criticism, realism has an important role to caution policymakers against high
idealism and morality so that they do not lose touch with the real picture based
on power and national interest. However, if it becomes a dogmatic practice,
realism can be used to justify aggression and war.

7.6 LET US SUM UP

Realism as an approach has many strands. However, the realists agree on a number
of issues. They agree that international politics is power politics and states are
the main actors in IR. They also stand united in saying that anarchy exists at
international level and there is security dilemma that states face. Classical realism
and neo-realism have certain differences while the neo-realists are further divided
in two camps – defensive realism and offensive realism. Realism has an important
role to caution policymakers against high ideals but too much emphasis on realism
can lead to war and aggression.

7.7 REFERENCES
Aron, Raymond. (1966). Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations.
trans. Richard Howard and Annette Baker Fox. Garden City. New York:
Doubleday.

Bell, Duncan. (2017). Realism. Encyclopedia Britannica. URL: https://

www.britannica.com/topic/realism-political-and-social-science

112
Bell, Duncan. (ed.). (2008). Political Thought in International Relations: Classical Realism &
Neorealism
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 edition. New York. St Martin’s Press.

Donnelly, J. (2005). Realism in Andrew Linklater et. al. (eds) Theories of

International Relations. 3rd Edition. Palgrave. Macmillan.

Gilpin, R. 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. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
realism-intl-relations/

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York.

Norton.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2016). Structural Realism in Tim Dunne et. al. (eds)

International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford. OUP.

Morgenthau, Hans. (1960). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power
and Peace. 3rd ed. New York. Knopf.

Niebuhr, Reinhold. (1932). Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics

and Politics. New York. Charles Scriber’s Sons.

Thucydides. (1954). History of the Peloponnesian War. trans. Rex Warner.

London. Penguin Books.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading MA. Addison-

Wesley.

Wohlforth, William C. (2008). Realism in Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal

(ed) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford. OUP.

7.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1) Your answer should highlight following points: i) Exists under anarchic
international relations, ii) Also called spiral mode, iii) Steps taken by one
country to enhance its own security would decrease the security of other
states , iv) Threatened states then would take steps to increase their own
security , v) This ends up in a perpetual competitive cycle
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
1) Your answer should highlight following points: i) E H Carr launched an
academic attack on the idealists, ii) Called them deluded and dangerous , iii)
Argued morality is not universal but relative, iv) Highlighted the importance
of power, v) Morality is product of power.

113
Theoretical Perspectives Check Your Progress Exercise 3

1) Your answer should highlight following points: i) Differences over why states
want power (human nature vs anarchy), ii) Differences over the concept of
power, iii) Neo-realism influenced by microeconomic theory, more scientific.

2) Your answer should highlight following points i) Defensive realists believe

it stable international equilibrium is possible via balancing, ii) Offensive
realists argue states want maximum power and want hegemony, balancing
is not possible.

114