Assumptions of realism:

Basic realist ideas and assumptions are: (1) a pessimistic view of human nature; (2) a conviction
that international relations are necessarily conflictual and that international conflicts are
ultimately resolved by war; (3) a high regard for the values of national security and state
survival; (4) a basic skepticism that there can be progress in international politics which is
comparable to that in domestic political life.

While there are different variants of realism and, indeed, some subtle and intriguing differences
between them, the perspective has some central assumptions which provide a common link.

1. States are the key actors in international relations.

2. Sovereignty, or independence and self-control, is the defining characteristic of the state.
3. States are motivated by a drive for power, security and pursuit of the ‘national interest’.
4. States, like men, behave in a self-interested manner.
5. The central problem in international relations is the condition of anarchy, which means
the lack of a central sovereign authority at the global level to regulate relations between
states.
6. The aggressive intent of states, combined with the lack of world government, means that
conflict is an unavoidable and ever-present reality of international relations.
7. A semblance of order and security can be maintained by shifting alliances among states
so preventing any one state from becoming overwhelmingly powerful and, thus,
constituting a threat to the peace and security of others.
8. International institutions and law play a role in international relations, but are only
effective if backed by force or effective sanction.
9. Power is the key to understanding international behaviour and state motivation. For
realists the main form of power is military or physical power.
10. Human nature can be said to be inherently selfish and constant. As a result, humans will
act to further their own interests even to the detriment of others, which can often lead to
conflict. Because human nature is unchanging, there is little prospect that this kind of
behaviour will change.
Themes of realism:

1. The State and Power

The state is the central focus of realism, defined by sovereignty. Internal sovereignty refers to the
authority a state holds over its territory and people, while external sovereignty involves
recognition by other states. This recognition allows states to engage in international relations,
treaties, and alliances. Realists consider the state the primary actor in international relations.

 Kenneth Waltz:
In A Theory of International Politics (1979), Waltz emphasizes that states operate in an
anarchic international system. The international order differs from domestic systems as it
lacks a central governing authority, leading to a self-help structure. Waltz distinguishes
between system-level and unit-level pressures, showing how changes like the collapse of
the Soviet Union or shifts in alliances impact global power dynamics.

 Example:

Power is often equated with military capability, and the "balance of power" is essential
for maintaining state security, though it may require war.

2. Conflict and Violence

Realists view conflict as inherent in human interaction and international relations. While not all
conflicts are violent, realism focuses on inter-state conflicts, particularly wars, as states compete
for power and resources in an anarchic system.

 Thinker: Kenneth Waltz

In Man, the State, and War (1959), Waltz identifies three levels (or "images") to explain
war:

1. Human nature: inherent greed and aggression.

2. State structure: the pursuit of national interests causes clashes.

3. International system: anarchy forces states to prioritize security and survival.

  Example: The Cold War is a prime example of power politics, with the division of
Germany highlighting opposing interests. Resource conflicts, such as water scarcity in
the Middle East, also underline how material needs fuel tensions.

3. Peace and Security

Realists regard peace as temporary and secondary to security. Security is linked to state survival,
achieved by balancing power or accumulating military capabilities. Realists view efforts to create
lasting peace, such as institutions promoting cooperation, as flawed because of the anarchic
nature of the international system.

 Key Analogy (Stag/Hare)

This analogy illustrates the "security dilemma." A group of hunters cooperates to catch a
stag, but uncertainty leads one to pursue a hare instead, undermining the group's goal.
Similarly, states act in self-interest under anarchy, even at the expense of mutual gains.

 Example: Realists cite the failure of the League of Nations as evidence that states
prioritize national interest over mutual security. The Cold War arms race also
demonstrates how security concerns perpetuate conflict and limit peace.

4. Institutions and World Order

Realists are skeptical of international institutions, seeing them as tools for states to pursue their
interests. Cooperation occurs only when it benefits states, and institutions are effective only
under the leadership of a hegemonic power.

 Thinker: Robert Gilpin

Gilpin explains that hegemonic powers create and maintain institutions, such as the
Bretton Woods system post-WWII, to regulate the global economy and secure their
dominance. When hegemonic power declines, so does institutional stability.

 Thinker: Robert Keohane

In After Hegemony, Keohane critiques Hegemonic Stability Theory, arguing that
cooperation and institutions can persist without a hegemon. Factors such as shared
principles and reduced uncertainty sustain institutions.
  Example: The Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank, GATT) illustrate
hegemonic stability, functioning effectively during US dominance. However, the shift to
floating exchange rates in the 1970s shows the fragility of these systems when hegemonic
power wanes.

5. Identity and Community

Realists argue that identity is tied to the nation-state, which provides a sense of belonging and
moral worth. They view the state as the dominant political community, where national interests
govern behavior, particularly in international relations. Realists emphasize the centrality of
national security in uniting citizens, especially during times of war. Fear of the "foreign" is
intrinsic to the insecurity of international relations, shaping attitudes toward migration and
asylum seekers.

 Example: Nationalism fosters solidarity, but it also generates unease toward outsiders.
For example, realists view asylum seekers as a challenge to national identity and a source
of insecurity.

6. Inequality and Justice

Realists prioritize order and stability over moral principles, emphasizing the principle of
sovereignty. They argue that interfering in another state's domestic affairs, even to address
injustice, risks undermining international stability.
Realists maintain that sovereignty guarantees formal equality among states, regardless of power
disparities. While injustice within states may exist, non-intervention prevents chaos and conflict.

 Example: The invasion of Iraq in 2003 exemplifies realist concerns. While justified on
moral grounds (removing Saddam Hussein’s regime), the intervention resulted in
prolonged instability, supporting the realist view that internal issues should be left to the
affected state.
Types of realism:

classical realism:

Thucydides

Thucydides' realism examines the power struggles among ancient Greek city-states. He asserts
that inequality among states is natural and inevitable, and decisions in foreign policy are dictated
by survival and the harsh realities of power dynamics.

 Core Ideas:

o States exist in a system of inequality, where stronger states dominate weaker ones.
Power, not justice, determines outcomes in international relations.

o Leaders must prioritize prudence, caution, and foresight in navigating the anarchic
and dangerous world of power politics. The ethics of survival take precedence
over notions of justice or equality.

 Broad Examples:

o In the Melian Dialogue, the Athenians justify their dominance over Melos by
stating, "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." This
stark view reflects how states prioritize survival over fairness.

o The Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE) illustrates competition for dominance

between Athens and Sparta, with alliances like the Delian and Peloponnesian
Leagues forming to counterbalance power. This highlights the importance of
strategic alliances in ensuring survival amidst threats of conquest.

Machiavelli

Machiavelli's realism focuses on the practical responsibilities of rulers in securing state survival
and independence. He emphasizes the importance of adaptability, cunning, and the effective use
of power.
  Core Ideas:

o Leaders must act as both lions (forceful and strong) and foxes (cunning and
deceptive) to outmaneuver rivals and protect their states.

o Morality is secondary to political necessity. While Christian virtues such as

charity, honesty, and peace may be admirable, adhering to them in statecraft can
lead to the state's downfall.

 Broad Examples:

o In The Prince, Machiavelli advises rulers to use deceit and ruthlessness when
needed. For instance, Cesare Borgia, a historical figure admired by Machiavelli,
consolidated power through calculated cruelty, including betrayal and execution
of rivals, to stabilize his rule.

o Machiavelli’s emphasis on preemptive action applies to modern examples like

preemptive wars or interventions. For example, leaders conducting preemptive
strikes argue that it is better to act first than to risk a greater threat later, reflecting
his principle of anticipating danger.

Hobbes

Hobbes' realism is grounded in his concept of the state of nature, where humans exist in a
perpetual state of fear and conflict without a sovereign authority to maintain order. His insights
extend to the international realm, where states operate in a condition of anarchy.

 Core Ideas:

o The state of nature among individuals, characterized by "war of all against all,"
mirrors the anarchic international system, where states constantly fear and prepare
for conflict.

o The security dilemma arises as states, seeking to protect themselves, inadvertently

threaten others, perpetuating insecurity.
  Broad Examples:

o The Cold War epitomizes Hobbes’ security dilemma. The US and USSR, seeking
security through nuclear armament, triggered a global arms race that heightened
insecurity worldwide.

o Hobbes’ concept of the sovereign state offering domestic peace resonates with
historical examples like the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which established state
sovereignty and provided a framework for domestic order amidst international
anarchy.

Hans Morgenthau

Morgenthau formalizes classical realism, emphasizing the inevitability of power politics and the
ethical complexities of statecraft. He critiques idealistic approaches to international relations,
advocating for a pragmatic and morally flexible approach.

 Core Ideas:

o Human nature, driven by the animus dominandi (lust for power), underpins
international conflict. States, like individuals, seek power to secure their survival
and autonomy.

o Morality in politics is situational and must serve the national interest. Universal
moral principles cannot dictate state behavior, as leaders bear responsibility for
their citizens’ security and welfare.

 6 principles of political realism:

1. Politics is rooted in a permanent and unchanging human nature which is basically
self-centred, self-regarding, and self-interested.
2. Politics is ‘an autonomous sphere of action’ and cannot therefore be reduced to
morals (as Kantian or liberal theorists are prone to do).
3. Self-interest is a basic fact of the human condition. International politics is an
arena of conflicting state interests.
 4. The ethics of international relations is a political or situational ethics which is
very different from private morality. A political leader does not have the same
freedom to do the right thing that a private citizen has.
5. Realists are therefore opposed to the idea that particular nations can impose their
ideologies on other nations and can employ their power in crusades to do that.
6. Statecraft is a sober and uninspiring activity that involves a profound awareness
of human limitations and human imperfections.

 Broad Examples:

o Morgenthau's critique of Wilsonian idealism points to failures like the League of

Nations, which lacked the necessary power politics to enforce cooperation. This
underscores realism’s skepticism of purely moral or legalistic approaches to
global governance.

o The Cold War demonstrates Morgenthau’s principle of balance of power.

Alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact ensured no single superpower could
dominate, maintaining a precarious stability despite ideological conflicts.

Thomas Schelling

Schelling's strategic realism emphasizes the rational use of power, particularly in the nuclear age.
He views diplomacy and foreign policy as calculated bargaining processes designed to achieve
outcomes without resorting to full-scale conflict.

 Core Ideas:

o Diplomacy is a form of strategic bargaining, where threats and coercion are as

significant as military force. Effective diplomacy requires understanding the
adversary’s interests and vulnerabilities.

o The credible threat of violence is often more effective than its use. Coercion and
deterrence aim to shape an opponent's behavior by leveraging the "power to hurt."

 Broad Examples:
o Schelling’s ideas on nuclear deterrence reflect Cold War strategies like "Mutually
Assured Destruction" (MAD), where the threat of reciprocal annihilation deterred
nuclear conflict between the US and USSR.

o His concept of "bargaining through coercion" applies to modern scenarios such as

economic sanctions. For example, sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program aim
to pressure compliance without direct military intervention.
Neo-realism:

Neorealism (or structural realism) differs from classical realism by shifting focus from human
nature to the structure of the international system. While classical realism emphasizes the
decisions of state leaders and their moral dilemmas, neorealism analyzes how the anarchic
structure of the international system constrains states and compels them to act in predictable
ways. It is more scientific and systematic in its approach, often drawing from economic models.

Kenneth Waltz and Neorealism

Kenneth Waltz is the most prominent neorealist, emphasizing the importance of the international
system’s structure in shaping state behavior. His work Theory of International Politics (1979) is
foundational to neorealism.

 Core Ideas:

1. Anarchy and Structure:

Waltz argues that international relations operate in an anarchic system, meaning
there is no overarching authority above sovereign states. All states, regardless of
their size or ideology, perform similar functions (e.g., defending their territory,
collecting taxes). The only differences among states lie in their relative
capabilities.

2. Balance of Power:
States seek to balance power to ensure their survival. The distribution of
capabilities among states (e.g., military and economic power) determines the
structure of the system. Major shifts, such as the rise or fall of great powers, cause
structural changes in the international system.

3. Bipolar vs. Multipolar Systems:

Waltz argues that bipolar systems, such as the Cold War rivalry between the US
and the USSR, are more stable than multipolar systems. In bipolar systems, two
dominant powers focus on maintaining balance, reducing the risks of
 miscalculation and unnecessary wars. In contrast, multipolar systems are less
predictable and prone to instability.

 Example:
The Cold War is an example of a stable bipolar system. According to Waltz, the balance
between the US and the USSR maintained international stability and deterred direct
conflicts between the superpowers.

Mearsheimer’s Stability Theory and Offensive Realism

John Mearsheimer builds on Waltz’s ideas but introduces key differences, particularly through
his theory of offensive realism.

 Stability Theory:
Mearsheimer agrees with Waltz on the stability of bipolar systems, such as the Cold War.
However, he predicts that the transition to a multipolar system after 1990 would lead to
greater instability, particularly in Europe.

o He argues that the Cold War’s "long peace" (1945–1990) was due to:

1. Bipolarity, which limited great-power conflicts.

2. Rough nuclear parity between the US and USSR, which deterred

aggression.

3. The superpowers’ military presence in Europe, which prevented regional

conflicts.

o With the end of the Cold War, Europe transitioned to a multipolar system,
increasing the likelihood of instability and conflict.

 Offensive Realism:
Mearsheimer argues that states are not content with balancing power but instead seek
hegemony to maximize their security. This aggressive behavior stems from the anarchic
system, which compels states to dominate their rivals to prevent potential threats.
 o Regional Hegemony: Mearsheimer contends that global hegemony is
unattainable due to geographic and logistical constraints, but regional hegemony
is achievable. For example, the US dominates the Western Hemisphere and seeks
to prevent the emergence of peer competitors, such as Germany in Europe or
China in East Asia.

 Example:
Mearsheimer’s theory explains US efforts to contain Chinese power in the Asia-Pacific
region. By opposing China's rise as a potential hegemon, the US aims to maintain its
dominance and prevent any challenge to its influence in global affairs.

Defensive Realism vs. Offensive Realism

Waltz’s neorealism is often described as defensive realism, while Mearsheimer’s theory is

classified as offensive realism.

Defensive Realism (Kenneth Waltz)

 Core Idea:
Defensive realism, as championed by Kenneth Waltz, posits that states seek power
primarily for survival and security. States are seen as responding to the structural
constraints of the international system, particularly the anarchy that defines international
relations. However, they avoid excessive power accumulation, as it can lead to
counterbalancing coalitions and provoke insecurity from other states.

 Structural Constraints:
Waltz argues that international anarchy compels states to behave predictably, seeking
security rather than expansion. He emphasizes that the structure of the international
system, rather than individual state actions or characteristics, dictates outcomes.
Therefore, states do not act independently or with complete discretion; rather, their
behavior is shaped by the structure of global power distribution.

 Bipolarity and Stability:

Waltz's theory suggests that a bipolar system, where two superpowers dominate, is more
 stable and peaceful than a multipolar system, where multiple great powers exist. This is
because, in a bipolar system, there are fewer potential conflicts and greater deterrence.
The Cold War, with its superpower rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union,
exemplifies this idea. Waltz views the period of Cold War stability as an illustration of his
belief in the relative stability of bipolarity.

 Example:
The Cold War period (1945-1990) is cited as a clear example of a bipolar system
maintaining relative peace and stability due to the mutual deterrence between the United
States and the Soviet Union. The stability of the Cold War was largely due to the balance
of military power, particularly nuclear deterrence, and the lack of other competing
powers on the same level of capability.

Offensive Realism (John Mearsheimer)

 Core Idea:
In contrast to defensive realism, Offensive Realism, as articulated by John
Mearsheimer, argues that states are not merely seeking security but actively striving for
hegemony. Mearsheimer posits that great powers are inherently aggressive and will
always seek to maximize their power and influence. The ultimate goal for these states is
regional dominance, which guarantees their security and prevents the rise of peer
competitors.

 Hegemonic Ambitions:
Mearsheimer challenges Waltz’s notion that excessive power is counterproductive.
Instead, he suggests that states are driven by a relentless desire for dominance over their
region, and they will use any opportunity to achieve this. States aim for regional
hegemony to ensure that no other state can threaten their security. In a global context,
states can only become hegemonic in their own regions, as the scale of global hegemony
is unfeasible due to geographical and logistical barriers.

 The Role of the United States:

Mearsheimer uses the example of the United States to explain offensive realism. The US
 has historically sought to prevent any regional power in Europe (such as Nazi Germany
or the Soviet Union) or East Asia (such as China) from becoming a hegemon, as this
could threaten American interests. By maintaining dominance in its region, the US
ensures that no other power can challenge its authority or strategic position.

 Example:
Mearsheimer argues that if China were to rise as a regional hegemon in East Asia, the US
would likely react aggressively to prevent China's growing influence. This aligns with his
broader argument that great powers will always seek to eliminate any potential peer
competitors in their region.

Key Differences Between Waltz and Mearsheimer

 View of State Behavior:

o Waltz sees states as cautious and focused on survival.

o Mearsheimer views states as aggressive and expansionist, driven by a desire for

hegemony.

 Outcomes of Power Accumulation:

o Waltz emphasizes stability through balanced power.

o Mearsheimer predicts instability and conflict due to states’ relentless pursuit of

power.
Neoclassical realism:

Neoclassical realists are not content with that traditional or classical realist way of fram ing the
problem This is clearly evident by their acknowledgement of the significance of neorealism, and
by their desire not to repudiate neorealism but rather to improve upon it by introducing elements
which neorealists have left out of their analysis. Neoclassical realists clearly want to retain the
structural argument of neorealism. But they also want to add to it the instrumental (policy or
strategy) argument of the role of stateleaders on which classical realism places its emphasis.

Neoclassical realists focus on explaining what goes on in terms of the pressures of international
structure on the one hand and the decisions made by state leaders on the other. Neoclassical
realism also seeks to introduce an element that all other realists ignore or downplay in their
analyses: namely internal characteristics of states.

Key Characteristics:

1. Anarchy and Systemic Constraints:

o Neoclassical realism agrees with neorealism that international relations occur

within an anarchic system and are influenced by the distribution of power among
states. However, it diverges by asserting that while these systemic factors set
broad constraints, they do not strictly dictate state behavior.

2. Leadership and Foreign Policy:

o Drawing from classical realism (e.g., Morgenthau and Kissinger), neoclassical

realism emphasizes the role of leadership in foreign policy decisions. Leaders
operate within the "broad parameters" of international anarchy but have
significant latitude in defining and pursuing their state’s security interests.

3. Domestic Factors:

o A key innovation of neoclassical realism is its incorporation of domestic factors

into the analysis of foreign policy. It seeks to explain how internal state
characteristics—such as the capacity of political and military institutions, societal
influences, state autonomy, and elite or societal cohesion—mediate the
relationship between systemic pressures and state behavior.
 4. Agency versus Determinism:

o Neoclassical realism strikes a balance between systemic determinism (neorealism)

and leadership agency (classical realism). While acknowledging that ignoring
systemic incentives can endanger a state's survival, it argues that states have room
for maneuver, and their responses are shaped by both external and internal
dynamics.

Analytical Focus:

Neoclassical realism examines the interplay between three levels:

 International System: The anarchic structure and distribution of power.

 State Leadership: How leaders perceive and respond to systemic pressures.

 Domestic Characteristics: Internal societal and institutional factors that shape foreign
policy decisions.
Criticisms

While realism was not initially the dominant perspective in International Relations, historically,
it has been the dominant tradition in the discipline and perhaps it is for this reason that it has
been subjected to so much criticism. Liberalism and structuralism can both be used to develop a
critique of realism. In more recent years realism has been subjected to complicated critiques
from Critical Theorists.

1. The fact that realism is simple and understandable is presented as a strength of the
perspective. However, an opposing argument would suggest that realism is too simplistic,
reducing the complex reality of international relations to a few general laws which are
said to be applicable over time and space
2. Realism, in emphasising the principle of power politics and the enduring features of the
inter national system, fails to allow for the possibility of real change. Realists accept that
great powers rise and fall, and wars come and go, but insist that the basic rules of the
game cannot be changed. In failing to embrace the idea of substantive changes, realism is
inherently conservative and anti innovative
3. Byconsidering states to be the only important type of actor in international relations and
by only viewing the agency of non-state actors such as MNCs as part of state agency
4. While realism has a cyclical view of history (a repetition of patterns of behaviour) it has
failed to successfully make any specific predictions. Most startlingly, realists failed to
predict the end of the Cold War
5. Realism does not help us explain which decisions will be made by states’ representatives,
but only why they will be made. Thus statespeople will make decisions rationally and on
the basis of national interest. However, how do we know if it is the national interest of
State A to attack State B? Perhaps it would serve the national interest better to delay an
attack or to seek an alliance against State C.
6. If we accept the possibility that the assumptions of realism are relevant only in a
particular context, there is possibly great danger in treating them as if they were universal
truths: that is, applicable everywhere and at all times.
7. In emphasising the centrality of the state and the national interest, realism encourages
people to view the world from a very narrow, ethnocentric perspective.
8. The simplistic view of human nature as being inherently selfish and unchanging has been
criti cised, in particular by more progressive approaches such as Green Thought and
liberalism. Here it is claimed that the nature of the society one lives in can change over
time and can thus change human nature or at least allow humans to be less selfish.
9. Realism ignores or significantly downplays the degree to which states might have
collective or mutual interests, and so underestimates the scope for cooperation and
purposive change in inter national relations.
10. We should ask if foreign policy really is conducted rationally and indeed what is implied
in the idea of rationality. Rationality seems unlikely to be the same for the leaders of
states with strong ideological or religious bases as it is for leaders of liberal democracies.
11. The antecedents of modern realism have perhaps been selectively read or interpreted in a
biased fashion.