Realism has been the dominant approach in international relations theory for the past two millennia.

Though
realism became a discipline in international relations during and after World War II, it is the product of a long
historical and philosophical tradition. It has its origin in earlier classical writers like: Sunzi, Chanakya,
Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.
After World War II, international relations theorist Hans Morgenthau produced a monumental work on
realism in international politics and offered a methodological approach for testing the theory. Morgenthau’s
textbook Politics among Nations became a bible on realism for the years following World War II. Policy
implications, particularly in USA, flowed naturally from this theory. George Kennan and Henry Kissinger are
known to have based their policy recommendations on realist theory.

ASSUMPTIONS OF REALISM
Realism is not a single idea; it is a worldview based on several integrated assumptions.
First, it assumes that the international system is anarchic. There is no authority above the states capable of
regulating their interactions. States must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than being
dictated by some higher controlling entity. In other words, no true authoritative world government exists.
Secondly, sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system. International institutions, non-
governmental organizations, multinational corporations and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed
as having little independent influence.
Thirdly, states are rational unitary actors each acting towards their own national interest. There is a general
distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
Fourthly, national security and survival are the primary ‘national interest’ of each state. In pursuit of national
security, states strive to increase national power.
National interest, defined in terms of national power, guides the actions of the states in international relations.
Fifthly, relations between states are determined by their comparative level of power derived primarily from
their military and economic capabilities. Military capabilities must be at least sufficient to deter attack, and
strategic planning should be along lines of the worst-case scenario.
Political realists, deriving their basic assumptions from these philosophic expositions, believe that mankind is
not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive.
Further, they believe that states are inherently aggressive; and that territorial expansion is only constrained
by opposing power. This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one’s
own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent builds up its own armies. Thus, security is a
zero-sum game where only relative gains are made.
MORGENTHAU’S THEORY OF REALISM
In the post-second world war era, Morgenthau has been the most vocal exponent of realist theory of
international relations. His theory of realism is based on following six principles:
1. Politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature
which is unchanging. Therefore, it is possible to develop a rational theory that reflects those objective
laws.
2. The main principle of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power which
infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding
of politics possible. Morgenthau views international politics as a process in which national interests
are accommodated or resolved on the basis of diplomacy of war.
3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid but
not with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. In a world in which sovereign states compete for
power survival constitutes the minimum goal of foreign policy and the core national interest. The
protection of “their physical and cultural identity against encroachments by other nations” constitutes
the vital interest which is common to all states. Therefore, the basic minimum national interest
identifiable is national survival and other interests are determined by the requirements of time, place,
culture, socio-economic and political condition of the states.
4. Universal moral principles cannot be applied to state action. They must be filtered through concrete
circumstances of time and place. To confuse individual morality with state morality is to court disaster,
as states in pursuit of their national interest are governed by a morality that is different from the
morality of individuals in their personal relationships.
5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that
govern the universe. It is concept of interest defined in terms of power that saves us from the moral
excess and political folly.
6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere.
Therefore, this understanding of human nature as selfish and conflictual unless given appropriate conditions
has been successfully adopted, internalized and transformed into a modern theory of international relations.
International politics is a struggle for power which can be explained at three levels of analysis:
i. the selfish individual in the state of nature struggles for self-preservation
ii. autonomous state is constantly involved in power struggle, balancing power with power to preserve its self-
interest
iii. since the international system is anarchic, the struggle is continuous and leaders are driven by a morality
quite different from that of ordinary individuals. For realists, morality is to be judged by the political
consequences of policy.
Realism prevailed as the dominant paradigm with its emphasis on the autonomy of political action and the
“billiard ball” model in international relations till it was challenged by the behavioural revolution. But it re-
emerged in the form of neo-realism in the 1970s.

-Mahekam