Realism (international relations)

Last updated
Niccolo Machiavelli's seminal work The Prince (1532) was a major stimulus to realist thinking. Portrait of Niccolo Machiavelli by Santi di Tito.jpg
Niccolò Machiavelli's seminal work The Prince (1532) was a major stimulus to realist thinking.

Realism, a school of thought in international relations theory, is a theoretical framework that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation. [1] [2]

Contents

Realism involves the strategic use of military force and alliances to boost global influence while maintaining a balance of power. War is seen as an inevitability inherent in the anarchic conditions of world politics. Realism also emphasizes the complex dynamics of the security dilemma, where actions taken for security reasons can unintentionally lead to tensions between states. [1]

Unlike idealism or liberalism, realism underscores the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics. In contrast to liberalism, which champions cooperation, realism asserts that the dynamics of the international arena revolve around states actively advancing national interests and prioritizing security. While idealism leans towards cooperation and ethical considerations, realism argues that states operate in a realm devoid of inherent justice, where ethical norms may not apply. [1]

Early popular proponents of realism included Thucydides (5th century BCE), Machiavelli (16th century), Hobbes (17th century), and Rousseau (18th century). [3] Carl von Clausewitz (early 19th century), another contributor to the realist school of thought, viewed war as an act of statecraft and gave strong emphasis on hard power. Clausewitz felt that armed conflict was inherently one-sided, where typically only one victor can emerge between two parties, with no peace. [4]

Realism became popular again in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. At that time, it polemicized with the progressive, reformist optimism associated with liberal internationalists like U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. [1] The 20th century brand of classical realism, exemplified by theorists such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau, has evolved into neorealism—a more scientifically oriented approach to the study of international relations developed during the latter half of the Cold War. [1] In the 21st century, realism has experienced a resurgence, fueled by escalating tensions among world powers. Some of the most influential proponents of political realism today are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.[ citation needed ]

Overview

Realists fall into three classes based on their view of the essential causes of conflict between states:

Realism entails a spectrum of ideas, [6] [7] [8] [9] which tend to revolve around several central propositions, such as:

  1. State-centrism: states are the central actors in international politics, [10] : 209  rather than leaders or international organizations;
  2. Anarchy: the international political system is anarchic, as there is no supranational authority to enforce rules;
  3. Rationality and/or egoism : states act in their rational self-interest within the international system; and
  4. Power: states desire power to ensure self-preservation. [6] [11] [7]

Political scientists sometimes associate realism with Realpolitik , [12] as both deal with the pursuit, possession, and application of power. Realpolitik, however, is an older prescriptive guideline limited to policy-making, while realism is a wider theoretical and methodological paradigm which aims to describe, explain, and predict events in international relations. As an academic pursuit, realism is not necessarily tied to ideology; it does not favor any particular moral philosophy, nor does it consider ideology to be a major factor in the behavior of nations.

However, realists are generally critical of liberal foreign policy. [13] Garrett Ward Sheldon has characterised the priorities of realists as Machiavellian and seen them as prioritising the seeking of power, [14] although realists have also advocated the idea that powerful states concede spheres of influence to other powerful states. [15] [16]

Common assumptions

The four propositions of realism are as follows. [11] [9] [17]

  1. State-centrism: States are the most important actors.
  2. Anarchy: The international system is anarchic.
    • No actor exists above states, capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
    • The international system exists in a state of constant antagonism (anarchy).
  3. Egoism: All states within the system pursue narrow self-interests.
    • States tend to pursue self-interest.
    • Groups strive to attain as many resources as possible (relative gain).
  4. Power politics: The primary concern of all states is power and security.
    • States build up their militaries to survive, which may lead to a security dilemma.

Realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there exist conditions under which humans may coexist. It is also disposed of the notion that an individual's intuitive nature is made up of anarchy. In regards to self-interest, these individuals are self-reliant and are motivated in seeking more power. They are also believed to be fearful. This view contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations.

The state emphasises an interest in accumulating power to ensure security in an anarchic world. Power is a concept primarily thought of in terms of material resources necessary to induce harm or coerce other states (to fight and win wars). The use of power places an emphasis on coercive tactics being acceptable to either accomplish something in the national interest or avoid something inimical to the national interest. The state is the most important actor under realism. It is unitary and autonomous because it speaks and acts with one voice. The power of the state is understood in terms of its military capabilities. A key concept under realism is the international distribution of power referred to as system polarity. Polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in an international system. A multipolar system is composed of three or more blocs, a bipolar system is composed of two blocs, and a unipolar system is dominated by a single power or hegemon. Under unipolarity realism predicts that states will band together to oppose the hegemon and restore a balance of power. Although all states seek hegemony under realism as the only way to ensure their own security, other states in the system are incentivised to prevent the emergence of a hegemon through balancing.

States employ the rational model of decision making by obtaining and acting upon complete and accurate information. The state is sovereign and guided by a national interest defined in terms of power. Since the only constraint of the international system is anarchy, there is no international authority and states are left to their own devices to ensure their own security. Realists believe that sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system. International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence. States are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and obsessed with security (defensive realism). Territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing powers. This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma whereby increasing one's security may bring along even greater instability as an opposing power builds up its own arms in response (an arms race). Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made. Moreover, the "relative gains" notion of the realist school implies that states must fight against each other to gain benefits. [18]

Realists believe that there are no universal principles with which all states may guide their actions. Instead, a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve problems as they arise. A lack of certainty regarding intentions prompts mistrust and competition between states. [19]

Rather than assume that states are the central actors, some realists, such as William Wohlforth and Randall Schweller refer instead to "groups" as the key actors of interest. [8] [9]

Finally, states are sometimes described as "billiard balls" or "black boxes". This analogy is meant to underscore the secondary importance of internal state dynamics and decisionmaking in realist models, in stark contrast to bureaucratic or individual-level theories of international relations.[ citation needed ]

Realism in statecraft

The ideas behind George F. Kennan's work as a diplomat and diplomatic historian remain relevant to the debate over American foreign policy, which since the 19th century has been characterized by a shift from the Founding Fathers' realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations. In the realist tradition, security is based on the principle of a balance of power and the reliance on morality as the sole determining factor in statecraft is considered impractical. According to the Wilsonian approach, on the other hand, the spread of democracy abroad as a foreign policy is key and morals are universally valid. During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, American diplomacy reflected the Wilsonian school to such a degree that those in favor of the realist approach likened Clinton's policies to social work. Some argue that in Kennan's view of American diplomacy, based on the realist approach, such apparent moralism without regard to the realities of power and the national interest is self-defeating and may lead to the erosion of power, to America's detriment. [20] Others argue that Kennan, a proponent of the Marshall Plan (which gave out bountiful American aid to post-WW2 countries), might agree that Clinton's aid functioned strategically to secure international leverage: a diplomatic maneuver well within the bounds of political realism as described by Hedley Bull.

Realists often hold that statesmen tend towards realism whereas realism is deeply unpopular among the public. [21] When statesmen take actions that divert from realist policies, academic realists often argue that this is due to distortions that stem from domestic politics. [22] However, some research suggests that realist policies are actually popular among the public whereas elites are more beholden to liberal ideas. [23] Abrahamsen suggested that realpolitik for middle powers can include supporting idealism and liberal internationalism. [24]

Historical branches and antecedents

While realism as a formal discipline in international relations did not arrive until World War II, its primary assumptions have been expressed in earlier writings. [25] Realists trace the history of their ideas back to classical antiquity, beginning with Thucydides (fl. 5th century BCE).

Historian Jean Bethke Elshtain traces the historiography of realism:

The genealogy of realism as international relations, although acknowledging antecedents, gets down to serious business with Machiavelli, moving on to theorists of sovereignty and apologists for the national interest. It is present in its early modern forms with Hobbes's Leviathan (1651). [26]

Modern realism began as a serious field of research in the United States during and after World War II. This evolution was partly fueled by European war migrants like Hans Morgenthau, whose work Politics Among Nations is considered a seminal development in the rise of modern realism. Other influential figures were George F. Kennan (known for his work on containment), Nicholas Spykman (known for his work on geostrategy and containment), Herman Kahn (known for his work on nuclear strategy) and E. H. Carr. [27]

Classical realism

Classical realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of humans that pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places interests over ideologies. Classical realism is an ideology defined as the view that the "drive for power and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental aspects of human nature". [28] Prominent classical realists:

Liberal realism or the English school of rationalism

The English school holds that the international system, while anarchical in structure, forms a "society of states" where common norms and interests allow for more order and stability than that which may be expected in a strict realist view. Prominent English School writer Hedley Bull's 1977 classic, The Anarchical Society , is a key statement of this position.

Prominent liberal realists:

Neorealism or structural realism

Neorealism derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature, its focus is predominantly on the anarchic structure of the international system. States are primary actors because there is no political monopoly on force existing above any sovereign. While states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states through levels of analysis or structure and agency debate. The international system is seen as a structure acting on the state with individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as a whole.

While neorealism shares a focus on the international system with the English school, neorealism differs in the emphasis it places on the permanence of conflict. To ensure state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.

Prominent neorealists:

Neoclassical realism

Neoclassical realism can be seen as the third generation of realism, coming after the classical authors of the first wave (Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes) and the neorealists (especially Kenneth Waltz). Its designation of "neoclassical", then, has a double meaning:

  1. It offers the classics a renaissance;
  2. It is a synthesis of the neorealist and the classical realist approaches.

Gideon Rose is responsible for coining the term in a book review he wrote in 1998. [29]

The primary motivation underlying the development of neoclassical realism was the fact that neorealism was only useful to explain political outcomes (classified as being theories of international politics), but had nothing to offer about particular states' behavior (or theories of foreign policy). The basic approach, then, was for these authors to "refine, not refute, Kenneth Waltz", [30] by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives and a state's foreign policy decision. Thus, the basic theoretical architecture of neoclassical realism is:

Distribution of power in the international system (independent variable)
Domestic perception of the system and domestic incentives (intervening variable)
Foreign policy decision (dependent variable)

While neoclassical realism has only been used for theories of foreign policy so far, Randall Schweller notes that it could be useful to explain certain types of political outcomes as well. [31]

Neoclassical realism is particularly appealing from a research standpoint because it still retains a lot of the theoretical rigor that Waltz has brought to realism, but at the same time can easily incorporate a content-rich analysis, since its main method for testing theories is the process-tracing of case studies.

Prominent neoclassical realists: [29]

Realist constructivism

Some see a complementarity between realism and constructivism. Samuel Barkin, for instance, holds that "realist constructivism" can fruitfully "study the relationship between normative structures, the carriers of political morality, and uses of power" in ways that existing approaches do not. [32] Similarly, Jennifer Sterling-Folker has argued that theoretical synthesis helps explanations of international monetary policy by combining realism's emphasis of an anarchic system with constructivism's insights regarding important factors from the domestic level. [33] Scholars such as Oded Löwenheim and Ned Lebow have also been associated with realist constructivism.

Criticisms

Democratic peace

Democratic peace theory advocates also that realism is not applicable to democratic states' relations with each other as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one another. [34] However, realists and proponents of other schools have critiqued this claim, claiming that its definitions of "war" and "democracy" must be tweaked in order to achieve this result. The interactive model of democratic peace observes a gradual influence of both democracy and democratic difference on wars and militarized interstate disputes. [35] A realist government may not consider it in its interest to start a war for little gain, so realism does not necessarily mean constant battles. [36]

Hegemonic peace and conflict

Robert Gilpin developed the theory of hegemonic stability theory within the realist framework, but limited it to the economic field. Niall Ferguson remarked that the theory has offered insights into the way that economic power works, but neglected the military and cultural aspects of power. [37]

John Ikenberry and Daniel Deudney state that the Iraq War, conventionally blamed on liberal internationalism by realists, actually originates more closely from hegemonic realism. The "instigators of the war", they suggest, were hegemonic realists. Where liberal internationalists reluctantly supported the war, they followed arguments linked to interdependence realism relating to arms control. [38] John Mearsheimer states that "One might think..." events including the Bush Doctrine are "evidence of untethered realism that unipolarity made possible," but disagrees and contends that various interventions are caused by a belief that a liberal international order can transcend power politics. [39]

Inconsistent with non-European politics

Scholars have argued that realist theories, in particular realist conceptions of anarchy and balances of power, have not characterized the international systems of East Asia [40] [41] [42] [43] and Africa (before, during and after colonization). [44]

State-centrism

Scholars have criticized realist theories of international relations for assuming that states are fixed and unitary units. [45]

Appeasement

In the mid-20th century, realism was seen as discredited in the United Kingdom due to its association with appeasement in the 1930s. It re-emerged slowly during the Cold War. [46]

Scholar Aaron McKeil pointed to major illiberal tendencies within realism that, aiming for a sense of "restraint" against liberal interventionism, would lead to more proxy wars, and fail to offer institutions and norms for mitigating great power conflict. [47]

Realism as degenerative research programs

John Vasquez applied Imre Lakatos's criteria, and concluded that realist-based research program is seen as degenerating due to the protean character of its theoretical development, an unwillingness to specify what makes the true theory, a continuous adoption of auxiliary propositions to explain away flaws, and lack of strong research findings. [48] Against Vasquez, Stephen Walt argued that Vasquez overlooked the progressive power of realist theory. [49] Kenneth Waltz claimed that Vasquez misunderstood Lakatos. [50]

Abstract theorizing and non-consensus moral principles

The mainstream version of realism is criticized for abstract theorizing at the expense of historical detail and for a non-consensus foundation of the moral principles of the "rules of international conduct"; as evidenced in the case of Russian invasion of Ukraine. [51]

See also

Related Research Articles

Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of power politics in international relations, sees competition and conflict as enduring features and sees limited potential for cooperation. The anarchic state of the international system means that states cannot be certain of other states' intentions and their security, thus prompting them to engage in power politics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International relations</span> Study of relationships between two or more states

International relations is an academic discipline. In a broader sense, the study of IR, in addition to multilateral relations, concerns all activities among states—such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy—as well as relations with and among other international actors, such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), international legal bodies, and multinational corporations (MNCs).

International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It seeks to explain behaviors and outcomes in international politics. The three most prominent schools of thought are realism, liberalism and constructivism. Whereas realism and liberalism make broad and specific predictions about international relations, constructivism and rational choice are methodological approaches that focus on certain types of social explanation for phenomena.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hans Morgenthau</span> American political scientist (1904–1980)

Hans Joachim Morgenthau was a German-American jurist and political scientist who was one of the major 20th-century figures in the study of international relations. Morgenthau was born in Coburg, Germany in 1904. Morgenthau's works belong to the tradition of realism in international relations theory; he is usually considered among the most influential realists of the post-World War II period. Morgenthau made landmark contributions to international relations theory and the study of international law. His Politics Among Nations, first published in 1948, went through five editions during his lifetime and was widely adopted as a textbook in U.S. universities. While Morgenthau emphasized the centrality of power and "the national interest," the subtitle of Politics Among Nations—"the struggle for power and peace"—indicates his concern not only with the struggle for power but also with the ways in which it is limited by ethical and legal norms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kenneth Waltz</span> American political scientist (1924–2013)

Kenneth Neal Waltz was an American political scientist who was a member of the faculty at both the University of California, Berkeley and Columbia University and one of the most prominent scholars in the field of international relations. He was a veteran of both World War II and the Korean War.

In international relations, the security dilemma is when the increase in one state's security leads other states to fear for their own security. Consequently, security-increasing measures can lead to tensions, escalation or conflict with one or more other parties, producing an outcome which no party truly desires; a political instance of the prisoner's dilemma.

Regime theory is a theory within international relations derived from the liberal tradition which argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behavior of states or other international actors. It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, as regimes are, by definition, instances of international cooperation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International security</span> Measures taken by states and international organizations to ensure mutual safety and survival

International security is a term which refers to the measures taken by states and international organizations, such as the United Nations, European Union, and others, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. International and national security are invariably linked. International security is national security or state security in the global arena.

Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time. One generally distinguishes three types of systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity for three or more centers of power. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or globally.

In international relations (IR), constructivism is a social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors. The most important ideational factors are those that are collectively held; these collectively held beliefs construct the interests and identities of actors.

Offensive realism is a structural theory in international relations that belongs to the neorealist school of thought and was put forward by the political scholar John Mearsheimer in response to defensive realism. Offensive realism holds that the anarchic nature of the international system is responsible for the promotion of aggressive state behavior in international politics. The theory fundamentally differs from defensive realism by depicting great powers as power-maximizing revisionists privileging buck-passing and self-promotion over balancing strategies in their consistent aim to dominate the international system. The theory brings important alternative contributions for the study and understanding of international relations but remains the subject of criticism.

In international relations theory, the concept of anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereignty. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Balance of power (international relations)</span> Theory in international relations

The balance of power theory in international relations suggests that states may secure their survival by preventing any one state from gaining enough military power to dominate all others. If one state becomes much stronger, the theory predicts it will take advantage of its weaker neighbors, thereby driving them to unite in a defensive coalition. Some realists maintain that a balance-of-power system is more stable than one with a dominant state, as aggression is unprofitable when there is equilibrium of power between rival coalitions.

The English School of international relations theory maintains that there is a 'society of states' at the international level, despite the condition of anarchy. The English school stands for the conviction that ideas, rather than simply material capabilities, shape the conduct of international politics, and therefore deserve analysis and critique. In this sense it is similar to constructivism, though the English School has its roots more in world history, international law and political theory, and is more open to normative approaches than is generally the case with constructivism.

Defensive neorealism is a structural theory in international relations that is derived from the school of neorealism. The theory finds its foundation in the political scientist Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics in which Waltz argues that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to maintain moderate and reserved policies to attain national security. In contrast, offensive realism assumes that states seek to maximize their power and influence to achieve security through domination and hegemony. Defensive neorealism asserts that aggressive expansion as promoted by offensive neorealists upsets the tendency of states to conform to the balance of power theory, thereby decreasing the primary objective of the state, which they argue to be the ensuring of its security. Defensive realism denies neither the reality of interstate conflict or that incentives for state expansion exist, but it contends that those incentives are sporadic, rather than endemic. Defensive neorealism points towards "structural modifiers," such as the security dilemma and geography, and elite beliefs and perceptions to explain the outbreak of conflict.

<i>Theory of International Politics</i> 1979 book by Kenneth Waltz

Theory of International Politics is a 1979 book on international relations theory by Kenneth Waltz that creates a structural realist theory, neorealism, to explain international relations. Taking into account the influence of neoclassical economic theory, Waltz argued that the fundamental "ordering principle" (p. 88) of the international political system is anarchy, which is defined by the presence of "functionally undifferentiated" (p. 97) individual state actors lacking "relations of super- and subordination" (p. 88) that are distinguished only by their varying capabilities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randall Schweller</span> American academic

Randall L. Schweller is Professor of Political Science at the Ohio State University, where he has taught since 1994. He is a current member of the International Security editorial board and former Editor-in-Chief of the journal Security Studies.

Neoclassical realism is a theory of international relations and an approach to foreign policy analysis. Initially coined by Gideon Rose in a 1998 World Politics review article, it is a combination of classical realist and neorealist – particularly defensive realist – theories.

Liberal institutionalism is a theory of international relations that holds that international cooperation between states is feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can reduce conflict and competition. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism, liberal institutionalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to international relations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Classical realism (international relations)</span> Theory of international relations

Classical realism is an international relations theory from the realist school of thought. Realism makes the following assumptions: states are the main actors in the international relations system, there is no supranational international authority, states act in their own self-interest, and states want power for self-preservation. Classical realism differs from other forms of realism in that it places specific emphasis on human nature and domestic politics as the key factor in explaining state behavior and the causes of inter-state conflict. Classical realist theory adopts a pessimistic view of human nature and argues that humans are not inherently benevolent but instead they are self-interested and act out of fear or aggression. Furthermore, it emphasizes that this human nature is reflected by states in international politics due to international anarchy.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Devetak, Richard, ed. (2012). An introduction to international relations (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 36–41. ISBN   978-1-107-60000-3.
  2. ↑ Blanton, Shannon Lindsey; Kegley, Charles William (2017). World Politics: Trend and Transformation (2016–2017 ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. p. 24. ISBN   978-1-305-50487-5.
  3. ↑ Jahn, Beate, ed. (2006). Classical theory in international relations. Cambridge studies in international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. p. 7. ISBN   978-0-521-68602-0.
  4. ↑ Creswell, Michael (2019-04-17). "Was Clausewitz a Realist? If So, What Kind?". E-International Relations. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  5. ↑ Miller, Benjamin (2020). Grand strategy from Truman to Trump. Chicago. p. 3. ISBN   9780226734965.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  6. 1 2 Goodin, Robert E. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 132–133. ISBN   978-0-19-958558-8.
  7. 1 2 Donnelly, Jack (2000). Realism and International Relations. Cambridge University Press. pp. 6–8. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612510. ISBN   978-0-521-59229-1.
  8. 1 2 Schweller, Randall L. (1997). "New Realist Research on Alliances: Refining, Not Refuting, Waltz's Balancing Proposition". The American Political Science Review. 91 (4): 927–930. doi:10.2307/2952176. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   2952176. S2CID   143586186.
  9. 1 2 3 Wohlforth, William C. (2008). Reus-Smit, Christian; Snidal, Duncan (eds.). "Realism". The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001. ISBN   978-0-19-921932-2.
  10. ↑ Cheng, Wenting (2023). China in Global Governance of Intellectual Property: Implications for Global Distributive Justice. Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies series. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN   978-3-031-24369-1.
  11. 1 2 Jack Donnelly, "The Ethics of Realism", in Christian Reus-Smit, Duncan Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 150.
  12. ↑ Frankel, Benjamin, ed. (11 October 2013) [1996]. Roots of Realism. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN   9781135210144 . Retrieved 2 September 2023.
  13. ↑ Deudney, Daniel; Ikenberry, G. John (2021-07-04). "Misplaced Restraint: The Quincy Coalition Versus Liberal Internationalism". Survival. 63 (4): 7–32. doi: 10.1080/00396338.2021.1956187 . ISSN   0039-6338.
  14. ↑ Sheldon, Garrett Ward (2003). The History of Political Theory: Ancient Greece to Modern America. Peter Lang. p. 251. ISBN   978-0-8204-2300-5. Machiavellian 'realism' has influenced American policy most directly (seeing the necessity for clever deceit with adversaries and power as the ultimate issue), but it has also affected the political cynicism that permeates much of American society.
  15. ↑ Allison, Graham (2020-06-10). "The New Spheres of Influence". Foreign Affairs. ISSN   0015-7120 . Retrieved 2021-08-19.
  16. ↑ "Spheres of Influence". Dissent Magazine. Retrieved 2021-08-19.
  17. ↑ Kirshner, Jonathan (2015). "The Economic Sins of Modern IR Theory and the Classical Realist Alternative". World Politics. 67 (1): 155–183. doi:10.1017/S0043887114000318. ISSN   0043-8871. JSTOR   24578341. S2CID   146756741.
  18. ↑ Cai, Feina (2011-04-28). "Absolute and Relative Gains in the Real World". E-International Relations. Retrieved 2024-02-09.
  19. ↑ Rosato, Sebastian (2021). Intentions in Great Power Politics: Uncertainty and the Roots of Conflict. Yale University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1k03gb9. ISBN   978-0-300-25302-3. JSTOR   j.ctv1k03gb9. S2CID   233588498.
  20. ↑ Russell, Richard (November 2000). "American diplomatic realism: A tradition practised and preached by George F. Kennan". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 11 (3): 159–182. doi:10.1080/09592290008406175. ISSN   0959-2296. S2CID   153454823.
  21. ↑ "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics | W. W. Norton & Company". books.wwnorton.com. Retrieved 2016-01-14.
  22. ↑ "Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2016-01-14.
  23. ↑ Drezner, Daniel W. (2008-03-01). "The Realist Tradition in American Public Opinion". Perspectives on Politics. 6 (1): 51–70. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.552.8386 . doi:10.1017/S1537592708080067. ISSN   1541-0986. S2CID   13362474.
  24. ↑ Abrahamsen, Rita; Andersen, Louise Riis; Sending, Ole Jacob (2019-03-01). "Introduction: Making liberal internationalism great again?". International Journal. 74 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1177/0020702019827050. hdl: 11250/2837725 . ISSN   0020-7020. S2CID   151226407.
  25. ↑ see also Doyle, Michael.Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (Paperback). 1997. London: W. W. Norton & Company, esp. pp. 41–204;
  26. ↑ Jean Bethke Elshtain (1992). Just War Theory. NYU Press. p. 261. ISBN   9780814721872.
  27. ↑ E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1989: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London, 1939)
  28. ↑ Baylis, J & Smith, S & Owens, P, The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press, US, p. 95.
  29. 1 2 Rose, Gideon (October 1998). "Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy". World Politics. 51 (1): 144–172. doi:10.1017/S0043887100007814. ISSN   0043-8871. JSTOR   25054068. S2CID   154361851.
  30. ↑ Schweller, Randall L. (December 1997). "New Realist Research on Alliances: Refining, Not Refuting, Waltz's Balancing Proposition". American Political Science Review. 91 (4): 927–930. doi:10.2307/2952176. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   2952176. S2CID   143586186.
  31. ↑ Randall L. Schweller, "The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism", pp. 311–347 in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman eds., Progress in International Relations Theory, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003).
  32. ↑ Barkin, J.Samuel (2003-09-01). "Realist Constructivism". International Studies Review. 5 (3): 325–342. doi:10.1046/j.1079-1760.2003.00503002.x. ISSN   1468-2486.
  33. ↑ Jennifer Sterling-Folker, Theories of International Cooperation and the Primacy of Anarchy: Explaining U.S. International Monetary Policy-Making after Bretton Wood, State University of New York Press, 2002.
  34. ↑ Hegre, Håvard, Michael Bernhard, and Jan Teorell. "Reassessing the Democratic Peace: A Novel Test Based on the Varieties of Democracy Data." V-Dem Working Paper 64 (2018).
  35. ↑ Altman, D., Rojas-de-Galarreta, F., & Urdinez, F. (2021). An interactive model of democratic peace. Journal of Peace Research, 58(3), 384-398.
  36. ↑ Sleat, Matt (February 10, 2014). "Legitimacy in Realist Thought: Between Moralism and Realpolitik". Political Theory. 42 (3): 314–337. doi:10.1177/0090591714522250. ISSN   0090-5917. JSTOR   24571403. S2CID   145776314.
  37. ↑ “Hegemony or Empire?” Foreign Affairs, 82/5, (2003): p 161.
  38. ↑ Deudney, Daniel; Ikenberry, G. John (2017-07-04). "Realism, Liberalism and the Iraq War". Survival. 59 (4): 7–26. doi: 10.1080/00396338.2017.1349757 . ISSN   0039-6338. S2CID   157512543.
  39. ↑ Mearsheimer, John J. (2019-04-01). "Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order". International Security. 43 (4): 7–50. doi: 10.1162/isec_a_00342 . ISSN   0162-2889. S2CID   139105003.
  40. ↑ Kang, David C. (2004-01-01). "Hierarchy, Balancing, and Empirical Puzzles in Asian International Relations". International Security. 28 (3): 165–180. doi:10.1162/016228803773100110. ISSN   0162-2889. S2CID   57572186.
  41. ↑ Kang, David C. (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. Columbia University Press. ISBN   9780231526746.
  42. ↑ Kang, David C. (2019). "International Order in Historical East Asia: Tribute and Hierarchy Beyond Sinocentrism and Eurocentrism". International Organization. 74: 65–93. doi:10.1017/S0020818319000274. ISSN   0020-8183. S2CID   211436025.
  43. ↑ Hui, Victoria Tin-bor (2005-07-04). War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511614545. hdl:1811/30029. ISBN   978-0-521-81972-5.
  44. ↑ Herbst, Jeffrey (21 December 2014). States and Power in Africa. Princeton University Press. pp. 26, 105–106. ISBN   9780691164137.
  45. ↑ Spruyt, Hendrik (1994). The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Vol. 176. Princeton University Press. pp. 11–15. doi:10.2307/j.ctvzxx91t. ISBN   978-0-691-03356-3. JSTOR   j.ctvzxx91t. S2CID   155957216.
  46. ↑ Hall, Ian (2006-05-01). "Power Politics and Appeasement: Political Realism in British International Thought, c. 1935–1955". The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 8 (2): 174–192. doi:10.1111/j.1467-856x.2005.00208.x. ISSN   1369-1481. S2CID   145359825.
  47. ↑ McKeil, Aaron (2021-07-09). "The Limits of Realism after Liberal Hegemony". Journal of Global Security Studies. 7: ogab020. doi: 10.1093/jogss/ogab020 . ISSN   2057-3170.
  48. ↑ Vasquez, John A. (1997). "The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition". The American Political Science Review. 91 (4): 899–912. doi:10.2307/2952172. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   2952172. S2CID   147532647.
  49. ↑ Walt, Stephen M. (1997). "The Progressive Power of Realism". The American Political Science Review. 91 (4): 931–935. doi:10.2307/2952177. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   2952177. S2CID   145121424.
  50. ↑ Waltz, Kenneth N. (1997). "Evaluating Theories". The American Political Science Review. 91 (4): 913–917. doi:10.2307/2952173. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   2952173. S2CID   251096519.
  51. ↑ Mälksoo, Maria (2023). "The Postcolonial Moment in Russia's War Against Ukraine". Journal of Genocide Research. 25 (3–4): 471–481. doi:10.1080/14623528.2022.2074947.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.