what is the relation between justice and power according to classical realism?

Belief that world politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict amidst actors pursuing power

This article is about the international relations theory. For other uses, see Realism.

Realism is one of the dominant schools of idea in international relations theory, theoretically formalising the Realpolitik statesmanship of early modern Europe. Although a highly diverse body of thought, it is unified past the belief that globe politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict amongst actors pursuing wealth and power. The theories of realism are contrasted by the cooperative ideals of liberalism.

Realists are divided into three classes based on their view of the essential causes of interstate conflict. Classical realists believe it follows from human nature; neorealists attribute it to the dynamics of the anarchic state organisation; neoclassical realists believe it results from both, in combination with domestic politics. Neorealists are also divided between defensive and offensive realism. Realists trace the history of their ideas back through classical antiquity, offset with Thucydides.

Realism entails a spectrum of ideas,^{[ane] [ii] [3] [four]} which tend to circumduct around several key propositions, such as:

1. State-centrism: states are the key actors in international politics, 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.^{[one] [5] [two]}

Realism is oft associated with realpolitik, 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 epitome to describe, explain, and predict events in international relations. As an academic pursuit, realism is non necessarily tied to ideology; information technology does non favor any particular moral philosophy, nor does it consider ideology to be a major factor in the behavior of nations. All the same, realists are mostly critical of liberal foreign policy.^[6] Priorities of realists take been described equally Machiavellian, single-mindedly seeking the ability of one's own nation over others,^[7] although realists besides advocated the idea that powerful nations concede spheres of influence to other powerful nations.^{[8] [9]}

Common assumptions [edit]

The four propositions of realism are as follows.^{[v] [4] [10]}

1. Country-centrism: States are the nigh important actors.
2. Anarchy: The international system is anarchic.
   • No actor exists in a higher place states, capable of regulating their interactions; states must make it 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 (chaos).
3. Egoism: All states within the organization pursue narrow self-interests
   • States tend to pursue cocky-interest.
   • Groups strive to attain equally many resource every bit possible (relative gain).
4. Ability politics: The master business organization of all states is power and security
   • States build up their militaries to survive, which may lead to a security dilemma.

Realists recall that flesh is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared past theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature every bit egoistic (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless at that place exist conditions under which humans may coexist. It is also disposed of the notion that an individual'south intuitive nature is made up of anarchy. In regards to cocky-interest, these individuals are self-reliant and are motivated in seeking more ability. They are too 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 impairment or coerce other states (to fight and win wars). The use of power places an accent on coercive tactics existence acceptable to either accomplish something in the national interest or avoid something inimical to the national involvement. The country is the most important player nether realism. It is unitary and autonomous because it speaks and acts with 1 vocalisation. The power of the country is understood in terms of its military capabilities. A key concept nether realism is the international distribution of power referred to as organisation polarity. Polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in an international system. A multipolar organization is composed of three or more blocs, a bipolar arrangement is composed of two blocs, and a unipolar system is dominated past a unmarried power or hegemon. Under unipolarity realism predicts that states volition band together to oppose the hegemon and restore a rest of power. Although all states seek hegemony nether realism as the just 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 determination making by obtaining and acting upon consummate and authentic information. The state is sovereign and guided by a national interest defined in terms of ability. Since the merely constraint of the international arrangement is chaos, at that place 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, not-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-land or trans-state actors are viewed as having picayune independent influence. States are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and obsessed with security (defensive realism). Territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing powers. This ambitious build-upwardly, nonetheless, leads to a security dilemma whereby increasing ane's security may bring along even greater instability equally an opposing ability builds up its own arms in response (an arms race). Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.

Realists believe that there are no universal principles with which all states may guide their actions. Instead, a state must ever exist aware of the deportment of the states effectually it and must employ a businesslike approach to resolve problems as they arise. A lack of certainty regarding intentions prompts mistrust and competition between states.^[11]

Rather than assume that states are the central actors, some realists, such as William Wohlforth and Randall Schweller refer instead to "groups" as the primal actors of interest.^{[3] [4]}

Finally, states are sometimes described as "billiard assurance" or "black boxes". This analogy is meant to underscore the secondary importance of internal country dynamics and decisionmaking in realist models, in stark contrast to bureaucratic or private-level theories of international relations.

Realism in statecraft [edit]

The ideas behind George F. Kennan's piece of work every bit 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. Co-ordinate to the Wilsonian approach, on the other mitt, the spread of democracy abroad every bit a strange policy is fundamental and morals are universally valid. During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, American affairs reflected the Wilsonian schoolhouse to such a caste that those in favor of the realist approach likened Clinton'due south policies to social work. Some argue that in Kennan's view of American diplomacy, based on the realist arroyo, 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'due south detriment.^[12] Others contend that Kennan, a proponent of the Marshall Plan (which gave out bountiful American assist 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 equally described by Hedley Bull.

Realists often hold that statesmen tend towards realism whereas realism is deeply unpopular amongst the public.^[13] When statesmen take actions that divert from realist policies, academic realists ofttimes contend that this is due to distortions that stalk from domestic politics.^[14] Even so, some enquiry suggests that realist policies are really pop among the public whereas elites are more beholden to liberal ideas.^[15] Abrahamsen suggested that realpolitik for middle powers can include supporting idealism and liberal internationalism.^[16]

Historical branches and antecedents [edit]

Historian Jean Bethke Elshtain traces the historiography of realism:

The genealogy of realism as international relations, although acknowledging antecedents, gets down to serious business organisation with Machiavelli, moving on to theorists of sovereignty and apologists for the national involvement. It is present in its early on modern forms with Hobbes'southward Leviathan (1651).^[17]

While realism every bit a formal field of study in international relations did not arrive until Globe War Two, its primary assumptions take been expressed in earlier writings.^[18]

Modern realism began as a serious field of research in the United states during and afterward World War II. This development was partly fueled by European war migrants like Hans Morgenthau, whose work Politics Among Nations is considered a seminal development in the rising 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 piece of work on nuclear strategy) and E. H. Carr.^[19]

Classical realism [edit]

Classical realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of humans that pushes states and individuals to act in a manner that places interests over ideologies. Classical realism is an ideology divers as the view that the "bulldoze for ability and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental aspects of human nature".^[xx] Prominent classical realists:

• Hans Morgenthau
• Reinhold Niebuhr – Christian realism
• Raymond Aron
• George Kennan

Liberal realism or the English language schoolhouse or rationalism [edit]

The English language school holds that the international system, while anarchical in construction, 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 author Hedley Bull's 1977 classic, The Anarchical Society, is a key statement of this position.

Prominent liberal realists:

• Hedley Balderdash – argued for both the being of an international society of states and its perseverance fifty-fifty in times of great systemic upheaval, significant regional or so-called "globe wars"
• Martin Wight
• Barry Buzan

Neorealism or structural realism [edit]

Neorealism derives from classical realism except that instead of man nature, its focus is predominantly on the anarchic structure of the international organization. States are primary actors considering there is no political monopoly on force existing in a higher place any sovereign. While states remain the chief actors, greater attention is given to the forces higher up and below united states of america through levels of analysis or structure and bureau fence. The international system is seen every bit a structure acting on the country with individuals below the level of the state acting equally agency on the country as a whole.

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

Prominent neorealists:

• Robert J. Art – neorealism
• Robert Gilpin – hegemonic theory
• Robert Jervis – defensive realism
• John Mearsheimer – offensive realism
• Barry Posen - neorealism
• Kenneth Waltz – defensive realism
• Stephen Walt – defensive realism

Neoclassical realism [edit]

Neoclassical realism can exist seen every bit the third generation of realism, coming later on the classical authors of the beginning wave (Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes) and the neorealists (especially Kenneth Waltz). Its designation of "neoclassical", and 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.^[21]

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), just had nothing to offer nigh particular states' beliefs (or theories of foreign policy). The basic arroyo, then, was for these authors to "refine, non abnegate, Kenneth Flit"^{[ citation needed ]}, by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives and a land'southward strange policy decision. Thus, the basic theoretical architecture of neoclassical realism is:

Distribution of power in the international system (independent variable)

Domestic perception of the organisation and domestic incentives (intervening variable)

Foreign policy decision (dependent variable)

While neoclassical realism has only been used for theories of strange policy so far, Randall Schweller notes that information technology could exist useful to explicate certain types of political outcomes as well.^[22]

Neoclassical realism is particularly highly-seasoned from a enquiry standpoint considering it still retains a lot of the theoretical rigor that Waltz has brought to realism, simply at the same fourth dimension can hands incorporate a content-rich assay, since its main method for testing theories is the procedure-tracing of case studies.

Prominent neoclassical realists:^[21]

• Aaron Friedberg
• Randall Schweller
• William Wohlforth
• Fareed Zakaria

Realist constructivism [edit]

Some meet a complementarity betwixt realism and constructivism. Samuel Barkin, for instance, holds that "realist constructivism" can fruitfully "study the human relationship between normative structures, the carriers of political morality, and uses of power" in ways that existing approaches practise not.^[23] 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'south insights regarding important factors from the domestic level.^[24] Scholars such as Oded Löwenheim and Ned Lebow accept as well been associated with realist constructivism.

Criticisms [edit]

Autonomous peace [edit]

Democratic peace theory advocates also that realism is not applicable to autonomous states' relations with each another as their studies claim that such states do not get to war with 1 another. All the same, realists and proponents of other schools take critiqued both this claim and the studies which appear to back up it, claiming that its definitions of "war" and "democracy" must be tweaked in order to achieve the desired result. Furthermore, a realist government may not consider it in its involvement to start a war for piddling gain, and so realism does not necessarily mean constant battles.^[25]

Hegemonic peace and conflict [edit]

Robert Gilpin developed the theory of hegemonic stability theory within the realist framework, only limited it to the economic field. Niall Ferguson remarked that the theory has offered insights into the way that economical power works, only neglected the military and cultural aspects of ability.^[26]

Liberal scholars Ikenberry and Deudney state that the Iraq War, conventionally blamed on liberal internationalism by realists, actually originates more than 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 command.^[27] The realist scholar John Mearsheimer states that "One might think..." events including the Bush-league Doctrine are "evidence of untethered realism that unipolarity made possible," but disagrees and contends that various interventions are caused past a belief that a liberal international order can transcend ability politics.^[28]

Inconsistent with non-European politics [edit]

Scholars have argued that realist theories, in item realist conceptions of anarchy and balances of ability, have not characterized the international systems of Eastern asia^{[29] [30] [31] [32]} and Africa (earlier, during and later on colonization).^[33]

State-centrism [edit]

Scholars accept criticized realist theories of international relations for bold that states are fixed and unitary units.^[34]

Appeasement [edit]

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 State of war.^[35]

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 ability conflict.^[36]

Run across also [edit]

• Complex interdependence
• Consensus reality
• Consequentialism
• International legal theory
• Game theory
• Global justice
• Legalism (Chinese philosophy)
• Might makes right
• Negarchy
• Peace through strength
• Realpolitik

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} Goodin, Robert East. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Printing. pp. 132–133. ISBN978-0-19-958558-eight.
2. ^ ^{a b} Donnelly, Jack (2000). Realism and International Relations. Cambridge University Press. pp. 6–8. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612510. ISBN978-0-521-59229-one.
3. ^ ^{a b} Schweller, Randall L. (1997). "New Realist Research on Alliances: Refining, Not Refuting, Waltz'south Balancing Proposition". The American Political Science Review. 91 (4): 927–930. doi:x.2307/2952176. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 2952176.
4. ^ ^{a b c} Wohlforth, William C. (2008). Reus-Smit, Christian; Snidal, Duncan (eds.). "Realism". The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001. ISBN978-0-xix-921932-2. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
5. ^ ^{a b} 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.
6. ^ 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.
7. ^ Garrett Ward Sheldon (2003). The History of Political Theory: Ancient Hellenic republic to Modern America. Peter Lang. p. 251. ISBN978-0-8204-2300-5.
8. ^ Allison, Graham (2020-06-10). "The New Spheres of Influence". Strange Affairs. - New York. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 2021-08-19 .
9. ^ "Spheres of Influence". Dissent Magazine . Retrieved 2021-08-19 .
10. ^ Kirshner, Jonathan (2015). "The Economical 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.
11. ^ Rosato, Sebastian (2021). Intentions in Not bad Power Politics: Uncertainty and the Roots of Disharmonize. Yale University Press. ISBN978-0-300-25302-3.
12. ^ Russell, Richard (November 2000). "American diplomatic realism: A tradition practised and preached by George F. Kennan". Affairs & Statecraft. xi (3): 159–182. doi:ten.1080/09592290008406175. ISSN 0959-2296. S2CID 153454823.
13. ^ "The Tragedy of Swell Power Politics | W. Due west. Norton & Company". books.wwnorton.com . Retrieved 2016-01-fourteen .
14. ^ "Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Strange Policy". Cambridge Academy Press . Retrieved 2016-01-14 .
15. ^ Drezner, Daniel Westward. (2008-03-01). "The Realist Tradition in American Public Opinion". Perspectives on Politics. six (ane): 51–70. CiteSeerX10.1.1.552.8386. doi:x.1017/S1537592708080067. ISSN 1541-0986. S2CID 13362474.
16. ^ Abrahamsen, Rita; Andersen, Louise Riis; Sending, Ole Jacob (2019-03-01). "Introduction: Making liberal internationalism bang-up again?". International Periodical. 74 (one): 5–14. doi:10.1177/0020702019827050. ISSN 0020-7020. S2CID 151226407.
17. ^ Jean Bethke Elshtain (1992). Simply War Theory. NYU Press. p. 261. ISBN9780814721872.
18. ^ run into likewise Doyle, Michael.Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (Paperback). 1997. London: Due west. W. Norton & Company, esp. pp. 41–204;
19. ^ East. H. Carr, The 20 Years' Crisis 1919-1989: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London, 1939)
20. ^ Baylis, J & Smith, S & Owens, P, The Globalization of Globe Politics, Oxford University Press, US, p. 95.
21. ^ ^{a b} 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.
22. ^ 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 Printing, 2003).
23. ^ Barkin, J.Samuel (2003-09-01). "Realist Constructivism". International Studies Review. v (iii): 325–342. doi:10.1046/j.1079-1760.2003.00503002.x. ISSN 1468-2486.
24. ^ Jennifer Sterling-Folker, Theories of International Cooperation and the Primacy of Anarchy: Explaining U.Due south. International Monetary Policy-Making after Bretton Wood, State University of New York Press, 2002.
25. ^ 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.
26. ^ "Hegemony or Empire?" Foreign Affairs, 82/5, (2003): p 161.
27. ^ Deudney, Daniel; Ikenberry, G. John (2017-07-04). "Realism, Liberalism and the Republic of iraq War". Survival. 59 (4): 7–26. doi:ten.1080/00396338.2017.1349757. ISSN 0039-6338. S2CID 157512543.
28. ^ Mearsheimer, John J. (2019-04-01). "Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Club". International Security. 43 (4): 7–50. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00342. ISSN 0162-2889. S2CID 139105003.
29. ^ 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.
30. ^ Kang, David C. (2010). East asia Before the Due west: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. Columbia University Press. ISBN9780231526746.
31. ^ Kang, David C. (2019). "International Club in Historical East asia: Tribute and Hierarchy Beyond Sinocentrism and Eurocentrism". International Organisation. 74: 65–93. doi:x.1017/S0020818319000274. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 211436025.
32. ^ Hui, Victoria Can-bor (2005-07-04). War and Country Formation in Aboriginal China and Early on Modern Europe (1 ed.). Cambridge Academy Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511614545. hdl:1811/30029. ISBN978-0-521-81972-v.
33. ^ Herbst, Jeffrey (21 December 2014). States and Power in Africa. pp. 26, 105–106. ISBN9780691164137.
34. ^ Spruyt, Hendrik (1994). The Sovereign Country and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Modify. Vol. 176. Princeton University Press. pp. 11–xv. ISBN978-0-691-03356-3. JSTOR j.ctvzxx91t.
35. ^ Hall, Ian (2006-05-01). "Power Politics and Appeasement: Political Realism in British International Thought, c. 1935–1955". The British Periodical of Politics and International Relations. eight (ii): 174–192. doi:x.1111/j.1467-856x.2005.00208.x. ISSN 1369-1481. S2CID 145359825.
36. ^ 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.

Further reading [edit]

• Ashley, Richard K. "Political Realism and the Human Interests", International Studies Quarterly (1981) 25: 204–36.
• Barkin, J. Samuel Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory (Cambridge University Printing; 2010) 202 pages. Examines areas of both tension and overlap between the ii approaches to IR theory.
• Bell, Duncan, ed. Political Thought and International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
• Booth, Ken. 1991. "Security in anarchy: Utopian realism in theory and practice", International Affairs 67(three), pp. 527–545
• Crawford; Robert M. A. Idealism and Realism in International Relations: Beyond the Discipline (2000) online edition ^{[ expressionless link ]}
• Donnelly; Jack. Realism and International Relations (2000) online edition
• Gilpin, Robert Grand. "The richness of the tradition of political realism," International Organization (1984), 38:287-304
• Griffiths; Martin. Realism, Idealism, and International Politics: A Reinterpretation (1992) online edition
• Guilhot Nicolas, ed. The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory (2011)
• Keohane, Robert O., ed. Neorealism and its Critics (1986)
• Lebow, Richard Ned. The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Mearsheimer, John J., "The Tragedy of Great Ability Politics." New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. [Seminal text on Offensive Neorealism]
• Meyer, Donald. The Protestant Search for Political Realism, 1919-1941 (1988) online edition
• Molloy, Sean. The Hidden History of Realism: A Genealogy of Ability Politics. New York: Palgrave, 2006.
• Morgenthau, Hans. "Scientific Man versus Ability Politics" (1946) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • "Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace" (1948) New York NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
  • "In Defence force of the National Interest" (1951) New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
  • "The Purpose of American Politics" (1960) New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Murray, A. J. H., Reconstructing Realism: Between Power Politics and Cosmopolitan Ideals. Edinburgh: Keele University Press, 1997.
• Rösch, Felix. "Unlearning Modernity. A Realist Method for Critical International Relations?." Periodical of International Political Theory 13, no. 1 (2017): 81–99. doi:ten.1177/1755088216671535
• Rosenthal, Joel H. Righteous Realists: Political Realism, Responsible Power, and American Civilization in the Nuclear Age. (1991). 191 pp. Compares Reinhold Niebuhr, Hans J. Morgenthau, Walter Lippmann, George F. Kennan, and Dean Acheson
• Scheuerman, William Due east. 2010. "The (classical) Realist vision of global reform." International Theory 2(2): pp. 246–282.
• Schuett, Robert. Political Realism, Freud, and Human Nature in International Relations. New York: Palgrave, 2010.
• Smith, Michael Joseph. Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (1986)
• Tjalve, Vibeke S. Realist Strategies of Republican Peace: Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and the Politics of Patriotic Dissent. New York: Palgrave, 2008.
• Williams, Michael C. The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Printing, 2005. online edition

External links [edit]

• Political Realism in International Relations in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• "Political Realism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Richard K. Betts, "Realism", YouTube

collinsworthblit1942.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

Share this post