Clearly explain Realist Theory to the study of International Politics. (1991, 2003)
Realism, also called power politics or Realpolitik, studies international politics as it is rather than as it ought to be. Systematised by E. H. Carr (The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1939) and Hans J. Morgenthau (Politics Among Nations, 1948) against interwar idealism, it became the discipline’s dominant theory because it offers the most powerful account of why war and rivalry recur.
Core assumptions
- State-centrism. The sovereign state is the principal actor. Multinational firms, NGOs and the UN act only within rules states make and with their consent.
- Anarchy. There is no government above states. Anarchy means the absence of a common authority, not chaos.
- Self-help. With no one to appeal to, each state must look after its own security.
- Survival is the supreme national interest. Security is high politics; welfare and trade are low politics.
- Power is the currency. Morgenthau: international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. His six principles (1954 edition) define national interest in terms of power.
- Rational, unitary actors. States rank goals and choose suitable means; the assumption is a methodological simplification.
- Security dilemma. Measures one state takes for safety make others less safe (John H. Herz, 1950; Herbert Butterfield), so arms races arise even among defensive states.
- Morality subordinated. Universal moral principles cannot govern state action in the abstract; prudence is the statesman’s ethic.
Main variants
| Variant | Source of conflict | Key claim |
|---|---|---|
| Classical (Morgenthau) | Human nature, animus dominandi | Interest defined as power; diplomacy and prudence |
| Structural (Kenneth N. Waltz, 1979) | Anarchy and the distribution of capabilities | Balances form automatically; bipolarity is stable |
| Offensive (John J. Mearsheimer, 2001) | Uncertainty about intentions | Maximise power; seek regional hegemony |
| Neoclassical (Gideon Rose, 1998) | Structure filtered through domestic politics | Perceptions and state capacity shape responses |
What it contributes to the study of international politics
- It explains the recurrence of war, the logic of balance of power, alliances, deterrence and arms races.
- It gives practitioners a working vocabulary of interest, power and balance. C. Raja Mohan (Crossing the Rubicon, 2003) reads post-1998 Indian policy as a shift from idealism to this vocabulary.
- It travels to India: Kautilya’s matsya nyaya and mandala anticipate anarchy and positional alliance. India’s credible minimum deterrence and its hedging between the Quad, Russia and BRICS read as self-help and external balancing.
- Current events fit its expectations. War in Ukraine, US–China export controls and the lapse of New START on 5 February 2026 left both largest arsenals unconstrained. SIPRI put world military spending at $2,887 billion in 2025, the highest share of world GDP since 2009.
Limitations
- Liberals (Robert O. Keohane, Joseph S. Nye): interdependence and institutions make cooperation rational; realism cannot explain the European Union.
- Constructivists (Alexander Wendt): self-help is a practice, not a structural law.
- Marxists, feminists (J. Ann Tickner) and post-modernists question the unit, the gendered categories and the theory’s claimed objectivity.
- It neither predicted nor easily explained the peaceful end of the Cold War.
Conclusion
Realism is the indispensable baseline theory of international politics: parsimonious, explanatory of conflict and close to how statesmen reason. It explains competition better than order, so it is best used as the first lens and then supplemented by theories that account for cooperation, norms and change.