University of Bath, UK, Date: 17 November 2006
Department of European Studies and Modern Languages
Seminar: International Relations and Security

Toward a better understanding of international relations:
the explanatory weakness of the realist paradigm

by: Patrick Mello

Table of contents

1. Introduction 1

2. The evolution of realist theories during the Cold War 2

3. The end of the Cold War: a turning point in international relations? 5

4. A contemporary realist approach: offensive realism 7

5. September 11, 2001 and its effect on IR 10

6. Conclusion 12

Bibliography 13

1. Introduction

Realism has arguably been the most influential theoretical strand in International Relations (IR) during the 20th century. However, with the end of the Cold War and the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union basic realist assumptions about the nature of the international system seemed out of date. Liberal arguments along the lines of Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man (1992) seemed on the rise. However, the events of September 11, 2001 put an abrupt end to the notions of peaceful change and the universalization of Western values. With security issues back again on the agenda will IR theory return to Cold War approaches or are there alternative models? This essay will discuss the question with a particular focus on the adequacy of the realist paradigm to understand contemporary IR.

The first part will illustrate the evolution of IR theory along the lines of three major representatives: Carr, Morgenthau, and Waltz. Beginning with Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939) at the onset of the Second World War I will outline major developments within the realist paradigm up to the end of the Cold War. The second part will focus on an article by Waltz concerning the adequacy of his theory after the Cold War. It will be contrasted with the criticism brought forth by Lebow. Finally, I will evaluate Waltz’s arguments.

In the third part of this essay I will examine Mearsheimer’s approach of ‘offensive realism,’ which is a branch of structural realism based on Waltz. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001) shall serve as a contemporary example of the realist argument. It will be briefly analyzed and set against criticism articulated by Snyder and Wendt. Following this will be a short assessment of Mearsheimer’s contribution to realist theory. The fourth part will focus on current events that took place after September 11, 2001. I will outline the results of several scholars and illustrate key trends for the new century. Finally, I will address the initial question and conclude that the realist paradigm is inadequate because it is insufficient to represent contemporary IR and offers no convining explanations. My results will be summarized in a concluding part.

2. The evolution of realist theories during the Cold War

In order to assess the adequacy of realist theory in the post-Cold War era a brief review of the preceding period is necessary. When trying to analyze realism one obstacle becomes apparent: instead of a fixed theoretical creed there is a multitude of theories under the broad heading of ‘Realism’. This is what Dunne and Schmidt point out when they state that there is no ‘single coherent theory’ of realism (2001, p.172). Broadly speaking, two types can be distinguished: classical, or traditional realism and structural realism, also referred to as neo-realism. Classical realism goes back to the works of Carr and Morgenthau while structural realism was introduced in Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (1979). These three works form what John Mearsheimer, has called the ‘most influential realist works of the twentieth century’ (2001, p.14). We will now examine how realism has evolved based on these works.
Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939) can be seen as one of the ‘first coherent expressions of a realist approach’ to international relations, whereas the works of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Clausewitz, and others, are more fittingly regarded as ‘intellectual precursors’ of realism (Burchill 2001, p.71; Viotti and Kauppi 1998, pp.57-64). Where Carr was largely concerned with criticizing the devastating political developments in the interwar period, Morgenthau aimed at providing a consolidated realist theory as well as practical policy guidelines in the wake of the Second World War (Burchill 2001, p.77). While the classical realists introduced many of the principles that remain essential for realism today, they do differ in some aspects from contemporary realists. Mearsheimer, however, detects a unifying antagonism towards liberalism: ‘Carr and Morgenthau frequently criticize liberals for holding utopian views of politics which, if followed, would lead states to disaster;’ a stance that agrees with Mearsheimer’s own position (2001, p.15). However, a close reading of Carr reveals a more differentiated view:

any sound political thought must be based on elements of both utopia and reality. Where
utopianism has become a hollow and intolerable sham, (...) the realist performs an
indispensable service in unmasking it. But pure realism can offer nothing but a naked
struggle for power which makes any kind of international society impossible. (Carr in Viotti
and Kauppi 1998, p.63)

In fact, Carr does not turn against ‘utopianism’ in general but rather against certain ‘hollow and intolerable’ forms of it, namely the failure of the League of Nations and the political climate of his time. Carr’s seeming approval of the idea of an ‘international society’ just goes to show the breadth of traditional realism as opposed to contemporary variants of realist thought.

[...]