Realism in International Relations: From Classical to Neorealism

Outline

1. Introduction: The Unyielding Shadow of Power
2. Classical Realism: The Immutable Laws of Power Politics
3. The Rise of Neorealism (Structural Realism): Anarchy, Not Human Nature
4. Key Concepts and Debates within Realism/Neorealism
5. Realism and Neorealism in Practice: Explaining World Politics
6. Critiques of Realism and Neorealism: Beyond the Power Paradigm
7. Relevance in 21st Century: Persistence and Adaptation
8. Conclusion

1- Introduction: The Unyielding Shadow of Power

International Relations (IR) theory grapples with the fundamental question of why states behave the way they do on the global stage. Among the myriad theoretical lenses available, Realism and its modern iteration, Neorealism, stand as perhaps the most venerable and persistently influential paradigms. Born from a profound skepticism about human perfectibility and a keen observation of historical patterns, these theories offer a stark, often pessimistic, yet arguably pragmatic understanding of world politics. They posit that the international system is, at its core, a realm defined by competition for power and security among self-interested states in the absence of a global authority.

This article embarks on an ambitious journey to dissect the intricate layers of Realism and Neorealism. We will move beyond superficial descriptions to engage with their foundational principles, trace their intellectual evolution, differentiate their nuanced approaches, explore their explanatory power through historical and contemporary case studies, and critically evaluate their strengths and weaknesses against competing theoretical frameworks. Our aim is to provide a competitive analysis, not merely to inform, but to deepen understanding and provoke critical thought on the enduring relevance of these paradigms in a complex, rapidly evolving global landscape.

2- Classical Realism: The Immutable Laws of Power Politics

Classical Realism, often considered the grand progenitor of power politics theory, asserts that the behaviour of states is rooted in immutable aspects of human nature. Its intellectual lineage stretches back millennia, drawing insights from ancient historians and philosophers who observed the relentless pursuit of power and security.

Roots in Antiquity and Early Modern Thought

The intellectual bedrock of Classical Realism is multifaceted:

• Thucydides (c. 460–c. 400 BC)

The ancient Greek historian, in his History of the Peloponnesian War, provided perhaps the earliest and most chilling exposition of realist principles. His account of the Melian Dialogue, where the Athenian envoys coldly explain to the Melians that "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept" (Thucydides 1972: 406), perfectly encapsulates the primacy of power over justice or morality in international affairs. Thucydides demonstrated how fear, honour, and interest drove state actions, foreshadowing core realist concepts. He emphasized the "naturalist character" of his realism, noting that "political animals are highly unequal in their powers and capabilities to dominate others and to defend themselves." (p. 68)

• Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527): 

In The Prince, Machiavelli offered a pragmatic, amoral guide to statecraft. He argued that rulers must prioritize the security and survival of the state above all else, even if it requires deception, cruelty, or the violation of moral norms. His focus on raison d'état (reason of state) – the idea that the state's interests justify its actions, became a cornerstone of realist thought. As Machiavelli (1984: 59–60) stated, "A prince . . . cannot observe all those things for which men are considered good, for in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion." He stressed that "Power (the Lion) and deception (the Fox) are the two essential means for the conduct of foreign policy" (Machiavelli 1984: 66).

• Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679): 

Hobbes's Leviathan described a "state of nature" where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes 1946: 82) due to the absence of a sovereign authority. He argued that rational individuals would surrender some liberties to a powerful state (the Leviathan) to escape this anarchic existence. Classical realists analogize the international system to this Hobbesian state of nature, where states exist without a higher authority, perpetually fearing for their survival. This leads to the "security dilemma" where achieving domestic security creates international insecurity.

Key Tenets of Classical Realism

Classical Realism coalesced into a distinct theoretical school in the mid-20th century, largely in response to the perceived idealism that dominated interwar thinking. Its core tenets include:

• Pessimistic View of Human Nature: At the heart of classical realism lies the belief that human beings are inherently flawed, driven by a 'will to power' (animus dominandi), egoism, and a desire for domination. This flawed human nature is then projected onto the state, which becomes a collective actor reflecting these same traits. As Morgenthau (1965: 195) states, "Politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining, and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action."
• The Primacy of the State: States are the principal actors in international politics. While non-state actors exist, their influence is considered marginal compared to the sovereign state. "International relations are primarily relations of states." (p. 66)
• National Interest Defined in Terms of Power: States seek to maximize their power relative to other states. Power, primarily military and economic capacity, is both an end in itself and a means to achieve other objectives, most notably national security. The "national interest" is not a fixed moral code but is constantly re-evaluated in light of the evolving distribution of power.
• Morality is Subordinate to Prudence: Universal moral principles are often seen as inapplicable or even dangerous in the anarchic international arena. State leaders must make decisions based on prudence, the careful calculation of consequences, to ensure the survival and well-being of their state, even if it means compromising on abstract moral ideals. There is no international moral consensus or enforcing agent. Morgenthau (1985: 12) states, "Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place. The individual may say for himself: ‘fiat justitia, pereat mundus (let justice be done even if the world perish)’, but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care."
• Anarchy and Self-Help: The international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority to enforce rules or protect states. Consequently, states must rely on their own capabilities for survival, leading to a "self-help" system.
• Balance of Power: States naturally seek to prevent any single state from achieving hegemony by forming alliances or building up their own capabilities. The balance of power is seen as the primary mechanism for maintaining stability, albeit a fragile one. For classical realists, the balance of power is not merely an empirical statement but "a basic value: it is a legitimate goal and a guide to responsible statecraft".

Key Thinkers of Classical Realism

• E.H. Carr (1892–1982): His seminal work, The Twenty Years' Crisis (1919-1939), famously critiqued the "utopian" thinking of interwar liberals who believed international law and institutions could eradicate war. Carr argued that international relations are fundamentally about power and interest, and that moral claims often serve as ideological justifications for state power.
• Hans J. Morgenthau (1904–1980): Arguably the most influential classical realist, Morgenthau systematized the theory in Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. He proposed "six principles of political realism" (Morgenthau 1985: 4–17):

1. Politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature: Human nature is inherently selfish and driven by a 'will to power' (animus dominandi).
2. The concept of interest defined in terms of power: This is the key concept for understanding international politics.
3. Interest defined as power is an objective and universally valid category, but its meaning is not fixed: The forms of power and national interest are dynamic.
4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action: Political ethics differ from private morality, requiring leaders to prioritize state survival and security.
5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with universal moral laws: No nation's morality represents universal truth; imposing values leads to conflict.
6. The difference between political realism and other schools of thought is real and profound: Realism maintains the autonomy of the political sphere, distinct from other domains.

• Henry Kissinger (1923–): A scholar-practitioner, Kissinger's writings and diplomatic career exemplify classical realist statecraft. His focus on the balance of power, geopolitical strategy, and the pursuit of national interest in a world of competing great powers solidified realism's practical influence. Kissinger (1994: 705) quoted President Nixon in 1970: "We must remember the only time in the history of the world that we have had any extended periods of peace is when there has been balance of power." Kissinger (1994: 29–55) also explored the dialogue between pessimistic realism and optimistic liberalism in diplomacy.

Critiques and Limitations of Classical Realism

Despite its historical resonance and explanatory power, classical realism faced significant critiques:

• Reductionist and Deterministic: Critics argued that attributing state behavior primarily to inherent human nature was too simplistic and reductionist. It seemed to deny the possibility of change, learning, or the influence of domestic factors.
• Lack of Scientific Rigor: Its reliance on subjective interpretations of human nature and historical narratives made it difficult to test empirically, leading some to label it more of a philosophy or an art of statecraft than a scientific theory.
• Underestimation of Cooperation and Institutions: Classical realists struggled to adequately explain periods of peace, the rise of international organizations, or the increasing economic interdependence among states.
• Difficulty Explaining Change: If human nature is immutable, how do we account for shifts in international norms, the decline of empires, or the emergence of new forms of global governance?

These limitations, particularly the challenge of providing a more systematic and parsimonious explanation for state behavior, paved the way for the emergence of Neorealism.

3- The Rise of Neorealism (Structural Realism): Anarchy, Not Human Nature

Neorealism, or structural realism, emerged in the late 1970s as a response to the critiques leveled against classical realism and as part of a broader "behavioral revolution" in social sciences aiming for more rigorous, parsimonious, and testable theories. Its primary architect, Kenneth Waltz, shifted the focus from human nature to the structure of the international system as the determinant of state behavior.

Context of Emergence

The 1970s witnessed a growing dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of scientific rigor in classical realism. Scholars sought a theory that could better explain systemic patterns of international politics, moving beyond the individual or state level of analysis. Waltz's Theory of International Politics (1979) provided this new framework, fundamentally altering the trajectory of realist thought.

Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics (TIP)

Waltz's TIP laid the groundwork for structural realism, emphasizing three key elements of the international structure:

• Ordering Principle: Anarchy: For Waltz, the defining characteristic of the international system is its anarchy, the absence of a central authority capable of enforcing rules or protecting states. This differs from domestic systems, which are hierarchical. Anarchy forces states to be self-reliant.
• Differentiation of Units: States are Functionally Undifferentiated: Waltz argues that all states are functionally similar in their basic tasks (e.g., survival, maintaining autonomy). Differences arise primarily from their capabilities, not from their internal characteristics (regime type, ideology, culture). As Waltz (1979: 97) states, "the state units of an international system are ‘distinguished primarily by their greater or lesser capabilities for performing similar tasks . . . the structure of a system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across the system’s units’". This "black box" approach to states is a major departure from classical realism's focus on human nature or specific leadership traits.
• Distribution of Capabilities (Polarity): The most crucial systemic variable for Waltz is the distribution of material capabilities (primarily military and economic power) among states. This distribution determines the system's “polarity”, whether it's unipolar (one dominant power), bipolar (two major powers), or multipolar (multiple major powers). Waltz posits that polarity significantly influences stability and war propensity.

Core Tenets of Waltzian Neorealism (Defensive Realism)

From these structural elements, Waltz derives several key tenets:

• States as Unitary, Rational Actors: Neorealism assumes states are unitary actors, meaning their internal politics are largely irrelevant to their external behavior. They are also rational, acting in ways that maximize their security.
• Security Maximization: States prioritize their survival and security above all else. They are not inherently aggressive; rather, their offensive actions are a consequence of the anarchic structure that compels them to ensure their survival.
• The Security Dilemma: In an anarchic system, actions taken by a state to increase its own security (e.g., building up its military) are often perceived as threatening by other states, leading them to respond in kind. This creates a spiral of arms races and distrust, even when no state genuinely desires conflict.
• Self-Help System: With no higher authority, states must rely on their own resources and strategies to survive. This leads to a constant need to balance against potential threats.
• Balance of Power: Similar to classical realism, neorealism sees the balance of power as a natural outcome of anarchy. States will balance against rising powers to prevent hegemony. Waltz, however, argues that bipolar systems (like the Cold War) are more stable than multipolar ones because the lines of conflict are clearer, miscalculation is less likely, and states are more contained. "With only two great powers, both can be expected to act to maintain the system" (Waltz 1979: 204).
• Difficulty of Cooperation: Cooperation is difficult in an anarchic system because states are primarily concerned with relative gains (who benefits more?) and the risk of cheating. Even if an agreement offers absolute gains, a state might be reluctant to enter it if a rival stands to gain relatively more, thus potentially shifting the balance of power.

Divergences within Neorealism: Offensive vs. Defensive

While Waltz laid the foundation, neorealism evolved, leading to important internal debates, most notably between offensive and defensive variants.

Offensive Neorealism (John Mearsheimer)

John Mearsheimer is the leading proponent of offensive neorealism, articulated powerfully in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. He agrees with Waltz that anarchy compels states to seek security, but he takes it a step further:

• Power Maximization (Regional Hegemony): Mearsheimer argues that states are not content with a secure position; they constantly strive to maximize their power relative to others, with the ultimate goal of achieving regional hegemony. This is because the international system is so dangerous that the best way to ensure survival is to become the most powerful state in one's region, deterring any potential challengers. "great powers ‘are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, with hegemony as their final goal’" (Mearsheimer 2001: 29).
• Fear and Uncertainty: States can never be certain of other states' intentions. This pervasive uncertainty, coupled with the potential for aggression, drives states to accumulate as much power as possible.
• Offensive Capabilities: States are inherently equipped with offensive military capabilities, which can be used to threaten rivals.
• Tragedy of Great Power Politics: The pursuit of security by each state inevitably leads to intense competition, distrust, and conflict, making war an ever-present possibility. There is no escape from this "tragedy." Mearsheimer (1993: 142) predicted for post-Cold War Europe: "the prospects for major crises and war in Europe are likely to increase markedly if . . . this scenario unfolds. The next decades in a Europe without the superpowers would probably not be as violent as the first 45 years of this century, but would probably be substantially more prone to violence than the past 45 years."

Defensive Neorealism (Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Walt, Charles Glaser)

Defensive realists, while accepting the core premises of anarchy and self-help, offer a more restrained view of state behavior:

• Security, Not Power, Maximization: States prioritize security, but they do not necessarily seek to maximize power indefinitely. An excessive accumulation of power can be counterproductive, triggering balancing coalitions against them (the "backlash" effect). For Waltz, "excessive power is counterproductive, because it provokes hostile alliances by other states." (p. 85)
• Moderation and Status Quo: Defensive realists argue that states are primarily concerned with maintaining their position in the international system, or with achieving a secure status quo. Only when their security is genuinely threatened do they resort to aggressive actions.
• Distinguishing Offense and Defense: Some defensive realists (like Glaser) emphasize the “offense-defense balance”, the idea that technology and geography can make it easier to defend than to attack, thereby mitigating the security dilemma. When defense has the advantage, states can afford to be less aggressive.
• Mitigating the Security Dilemma: While the security dilemma is inherent to anarchy, defensive realists suggest it can be mitigated. States can signal benign intentions, adopt defensive military postures, and engage in limited cooperation to reduce fear and suspicion.

The divergence between offensive and defensive neorealism highlights a crucial debate: does anarchy lead to an endless struggle for domination, or does it compel states to seek a more moderate, secure position?

4- Key Concepts and Debates within Realism/Neorealism

Beyond their core tenets, Realism and Neorealism deploy a set of interconnected concepts that form the analytical toolkit for understanding global politics.

Power: The Central Currency

• Definition: Power is typically defined as the ability of an actor to influence the behavior of others to get what it wants, even against their will. For realists, it's primarily seen in material terms:

1. Military Power: Size and quality of armed forces, weapons technology, nuclear capabilities.
2. Economic Power: GDP, industrial capacity, technological innovation, control over resources.
3. Geopolitical Power: Strategic location, control over key trade routes, natural resources.

• Measurement and Distribution: Realists spend considerable effort assessing the distribution of power, as this directly shapes states' strategic calculations. The concept of polarity (unipolarity, bipolarity, multipolarity) is central to understanding how power is distributed and its implications for systemic stability.
• Relative Gains vs. Absolute Gains: This is a critical distinction, especially in neorealist thought. Realists argue that states are more concerned with relative gains, how much they gain compared to other states, rather than absolute gains, how much they gain overall. If a cooperative venture benefits a rival more, even if it benefits one's own state, it might be rejected out of fear of a shift in the balance of power. This makes cooperation difficult.

Anarchy: The Overarching Condition

• Implications: Anarchy, for realists, is not chaos but the absence of a global government. Its primary implication is that states must rely on themselves for their security, leading to the self-help system. This fundamental condition shapes incentives, fosters suspicion, and limits the scope of cooperation.

Security Dilemma: The Tragic Trap

• Mechanism: As discussed, the security dilemma arises when one state's efforts to enhance its own security inadvertently diminish the security of others, leading to a spiraling cycle of arms races, mistrust, and potential conflict. It's a tragic outcome because it can occur even when no state intends aggression.
• Offense-Defense Balance: This concept, refined by defensive realists like Robert Jervis, explores how the ease of offense versus defense impacts the intensity of the security dilemma. If defense has the advantage, states might feel more secure and less compelled to acquire offensive capabilities, potentially easing tensions.

Polarity: The Structure of Power

• Unipolarity: One dominant power (e.g., US post-Cold War). Debates rage over its stability. Some realists argue it's inherently unstable as the unipolar power can act unilaterally, inviting balancing, while others suggest it can be peaceful if the hegemon provides order.
• Bipolarity: Two major powers (e.g., US-USSR during the Cold War). Waltz argues this is the most stable system, as interactions are direct, miscalculations are less likely, and powers are contained. John Gaddis (1987: 221–2) described the "long bipolar peace" of the Cold War, noting its simplicity, stable alliances (like NATO), and basis in power realities.
• Multipolarity: Multiple major powers (e.g., pre-WWI Europe). Generally seen as less stable due to more complex alliance dynamics, greater risk of miscalculation, and easier buck-passing.

National Interest: The Guiding Principle

• For realists, national interest is dynamic and defined primarily in terms of power and survival. It is not an idealistic construct but a pragmatic calculation of what best serves the state's security in a competitive environment. Waltz (1979: 113) states, "each state plots the course it thinks will best serve its interests."

Balance of Power: The Stabilizing Mechanism

• Internal Balancing: States building up their own military and economic capabilities.
• External Balancing: States forming alliances with others against a common threat.
• Buck-Passing: Shifting the burden of confronting a rising power to another state.
• Chain-Ganging: States being dragged into wars by their allies, even if their own interests are not directly threatened.
• The balance of power is seen as an almost automatic mechanism of the international system, a direct consequence of anarchy and the self-help imperative. "The balance of power is understood as an international relationship that is so likely to occur, and is so widely occurring, that it appears to be virtually a natural phenomenon." (p. 89)
• Hard vs. Soft Balance of Power: The "hard balance of power" is the classical realist concept focusing on military power. The "soft balance of power" is a more recent conception, emphasizing "tacit or informal institutional collaboration or ad hoc cooperation among states for the purpose of joint security against a foreign threat" (p. 89), including non-military ways. This concept has been criticized for "stretching" the notion of power (Nexon 2009) and for conceptual incoherence (Sartori 1984).

Cooperation: A Precarious Enterprise

• Realists are skeptical of extensive and lasting cooperation under anarchy. Even when states share common interests, the pursuit of relative gains and the fear of cheating often undermine collaborative efforts. Institutions, if they are to be effective, merely reflect the underlying distribution of power rather than fundamentally altering state behavior.

5- Realism and Neorealism in Practice: Explaining World Politics

The true test of any theory lies in its ability to explain observed phenomena. Realism and Neorealism have provided compelling, albeit often contested, explanations for some of the most significant events in modern international history.

The Cold War: A Neorealist Triumph?

The Cold War (1947-1991) is often cited as a prime example of a neorealist world.

• Bipolarity and Stability: Waltz argued that the bipolar structure, with the US and USSR as the two dominant powers, contributed to an unprecedented period of "long peace." The direct confrontation, clear adversaries, and minimal opportunities for miscalculation, combined with nuclear deterrence, created a system where each superpower could contain the other.
• Security Dilemma: The arms race between the US and USSR, driven by mutual suspicion and the desire for security, perfectly illustrated the security dilemma. Each side's attempt to build up its defenses was seen as a threat by the other, leading to a constant military buildup.
• Balance of Power: Both blocs (NATO and the Warsaw Pact) were clear examples of external balancing, with states aligning to counter the perceived threat from the opposing superpower.
• Relative Gains Concerns: The limited economic cooperation between the blocs, and the suspicion with which any perceived gains by the other side were viewed, underscored the relative gains problem.

The Post-Cold War Era: Unipolarity and its Challenges

The collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a unipolar moment, with the United States as the sole superpower.

• The "Unipolar Moment": Neorealists like Mearsheimer debated the implications. Some predicted balancing against the US, while others suggested that its benign intentions or overwhelming power might defer such a response.
• US Hegemony and Intervention: The US's willingness to intervene globally (e.g., Gulf War, Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq) was seen by some realists as an exercise of hegemonic power, exploiting the absence of a peer competitor.
• The Rise of China: Perhaps the most significant challenge to the unipolar order, China's economic and military ascendance is viewed through a realist lens as a classic power transition. Mearsheimer, for instance, predicts an inevitable and dangerous rivalry between the US and China as China seeks regional hegemony.

Great Power Competition in the 21st Century

Contemporary international relations are increasingly defined by renewed great power competition, a concept deeply rooted in realist thinking.

• US-China Rivalry: This is the quintessential power struggle. Both states are increasing their military budgets, competing for technological supremacy, and vying for influence in various regions. This aligns perfectly with offensive neorealist predictions of great powers seeking to maximize power and challenging the status quo.
• Russia's Resurgence: Russia's actions in Georgia, Ukraine (Crimea, Donbas, full-scale invasion), and Syria are interpreted by realists as attempts to reassert its sphere of influence, balance against NATO expansion, and challenge perceived Western hegemony.
• Arms Races and Military Modernization: Ongoing military buildups, particularly in nuclear capabilities and advanced conventional weapons, across major powers underscore the persistent security dilemma and self-help imperative.

Regional Conflicts and the Security Dilemma

Realism also provides a potent framework for understanding persistent regional conflicts:

• Middle East: The security dilemmas among states like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, each fearing the other's intentions and capabilities, leading to proxy wars and arms races.
• South Asia: The nuclear rivalry between India and Pakistan, a classic manifestation of the security dilemma, where each side's pursuit of deterrence fuels the other's insecurity.

In these contexts, realist theories highlight the constraints imposed by anarchy, the rational (but often tragic) pursuit of security, and the enduring difficulty of building lasting trust or cooperation.

6- Critiques of Realism and Neorealism: Beyond the Power Paradigm

Despite their explanatory power, Realism and Neorealism have faced sustained and profound critiques from a variety of theoretical perspectives. These critiques highlight what realists arguably miss or downplay, leading to a more nuanced and complex understanding of international politics.

Critiques from Liberalism

Liberalism, the main theoretical rival to realism, argues that realists overemphasize conflict and neglect the potential for cooperation.

• Role of Institutions: Liberals contend that international institutions (like the UN, WTO, EU) are not merely epiphenomenal but can fundamentally alter state behavior by reducing transaction costs, providing information, fostering reciprocity, and creating frameworks for dispute resolution. Realism struggles to explain the proliferation and occasional effectiveness of such institutions.
• Interdependence: Economic interdependence, global communication, and transnational flows (trade, finance, migration) create shared interests and costs of conflict, making war less likely and cooperation more attractive. Realists, with their state-centric focus, often underestimate the constraining effects of interdependence.
• Democratic Peace Theory: A cornerstone of liberal thought, this theory posits that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with each other. Realism, which tends to view all states as functionally similar units under anarchy, finds it difficult to explain this empirical regularity, as it suggests domestic political structures do matter.
• Non-State Actors: Liberals acknowledge the increasing importance of non-state actors (NGOs, multinational corporations, terrorist groups, international organizations) in shaping global politics, whereas realists generally relegate them to secondary importance.

Critiques from Constructivism

Constructivism poses a fundamental challenge to realism's materialist and rationalist assumptions.

• Ideas, Norms, and Identity: Constructivists argue that anarchy is not a fixed, material condition but "what states make of it." The meaning of anarchy, power, and national interest is socially constructed through shared ideas, norms, and identities. For example, the US and Canada exist in anarchy but do not fear each other because of shared liberal identities and norms.
• Intersubjective Meanings: Power is not just material capabilities; it is also about legitimacy, persuasion, and the shared understanding of who is powerful and why. Nuclear weapons in British hands are perceived differently than in Iranian or North Korean hands due to differing identities and norms.
• Explaining Change: Constructivism is better equipped to explain fundamental changes in international politics (e.g., the end of the Cold War, the rise of human rights norms) that realists often struggle to account for without reference to shifts in material power.
• Interests are Not Given: Contra realism, constructivists argue that state interests are not pre-given but are shaped by interaction, learning, and evolving social contexts.

Critiques from Critical Theories (Marxism, Feminism, Poststructuralism)

Critical theories challenge the very foundations and assumptions of mainstream IR theories, including realism.

• State-Centrism: Critical theories argue that realism's exclusive focus on the state obscures other crucial actors and power dynamics (e.g., social classes, transnational corporations, gendered structures).
• Ahistoricism: Realism is often accused of presenting its principles as timeless and universal, thus neglecting the historical contingency of political structures and the possibility of transforming them.
• Perpetuating the Status Quo: By presenting power politics as an inevitable and natural condition, realism can be seen as legitimizing existing hierarchies and hindering efforts for radical change or emancipation.
• Neglecting Emancipation: Critical theories aim for emancipation from oppressive structures. Realism, with its focus on competition and security, offers little space for discussions about justice, inequality, or human liberation. Ken Booth (1991: 319) argues that "Emancipation, not power or order, produces true security."
• Gender Bias: Feminist IR scholars argue that realism's focus on war, conflict, and state security implicitly privileges masculine attributes and experiences while marginalizing the roles and perspectives of women and the gendered nature of power.

Methodological Critiques

• Determinism vs. Agency: While Waltz aimed for a more scientific theory, neorealism is often criticized for being overly deterministic, leaving little room for state agency, leadership, or the impact of individual decisions. This contrasts with classical realism's emphasis on statecraft.
• Falsifiability: Some critics argue that certain realist propositions, particularly those concerning the inevitability of conflict or the constant pursuit of power, are difficult to falsify empirically, thus questioning their scientific rigor.
• Reductionism: While neorealism seeks parsimony by focusing on structure, critics argue it is reductionist in its "black box" approach to states, ignoring crucial domestic variables that influence foreign policy.

7- Relevance in 21st Century: Persistence and Adaptation

Despite the multifaceted critiques, realism and neorealism continue to offer valuable insights into contemporary international affairs, even as they face new challenges.

Persistence of Power Politics

• Great Power Competition: The renewed rivalry between the US and China, and Russia's assertive foreign policy, are frequently interpreted through a realist lens, highlighting the enduring struggle for power and influence.
• Security Dilemmas: Regional arms races and conflicts (e.g., in the Middle East, South Asia) demonstrate the persistent nature of the security dilemma, where states' efforts to secure themselves inadvertently create insecurity for others.
• Military Power: The continued emphasis on military modernization, nuclear arsenals, and strategic alliances by major powers underscores the realist assertion that military capability remains a fundamental currency of international politics.
• Limits of Institutions: Realists often point to the limitations of international institutions in preventing conflict when vital national interests are at stake, arguing that their effectiveness is contingent on the underlying distribution of power.

Challenges to Realist Explanations

• Non-State Actors: The rise of powerful non-state actors (e.g., transnational corporations, cybercriminals, terrorist organizations like ISIS) challenges realism's state-centric focus.
• Transnational Threats: Global issues like climate change, pandemics, and cyber warfare require collective action and cooperation that traditional realist frameworks, with their emphasis on self-help and relative gains, struggle to fully explain.
• Interdependence: The increasing economic and social interdependence among states suggests that the costs of conflict are higher than ever, potentially fostering cooperation in ways realists might underestimate.
• Norms and Internal Dynamics: The growing influence of international norms (e.g., human rights, R2P) and the impact of domestic political changes on foreign policy are areas where realism's structural focus can be limited.

Adaptations: Neoclassical Realism

In response to these challenges and the limitations of purely systemic or purely unit-level approaches, neoclassical realism has emerged as an important adaptation. It attempts to bridge the gap between structural realism and classical realism by incorporating domestic variables as intervening factors between systemic pressures and foreign policy outcomes.

Neoclassical realists agree with structural realists that the international system (anarchy, distribution of power) provides broad constraints and incentives. However, they argue that these systemic pressures are "filtered" through domestic factors such as:

• State Strength and Capacity: The ability of a state to extract resources and implement policies.
• Elite Perceptions and Beliefs: How decision-makers interpret threats and opportunities.
• Domestic Institutions: The nature of a state's political system.
• Societal Cohesion and National Identity: The level of unity within a society.

As Lobell et al. (2009: 7) state, "anarchy gives states considerable latitude in defining their security interests, and the relative distribution of power merely sets parameters for grand strategy." However, "leaders who consistently fail to respond to systemic incentives put their state’s very survival at risk" (Lobell et al. 2009: 7). This approach offers a more nuanced understanding of foreign policy, acknowledging the enduring importance of power and anarchy while also recognizing the complexity of domestic politics.

8- Conclusion: Enduring Utility of Realism's Sobering Perspective

Realism and Neorealism, despite their limitations and the persistent critiques they face, remain indispensable paradigms for understanding international affairs. Their enduring utility lies in their sobering perspective on the nature of global politics, reminding us that power, security, and self-interest are fundamental and persistent drivers of state behavior in an anarchic world.

While the rise of non-state actors, increasing interdependence, and evolving norms present challenges to traditional realist explanations, the core insights of realism, the centrality of the state, the competitive nature of international relations, and the ever-present possibility of conflict, continue to resonate in the 21st century. Adaptations like neoclassical realism demonstrate the theory's capacity to evolve and incorporate new variables, ensuring its continued relevance. Ultimately, realism's enduring contribution is its insistence on confronting the harsh realities of power politics, providing a crucial, albeit often pessimistic, lens through which to analyze the complexities of the international system.