Realism is the target for other international relations theorists. It inherits the thoughts from classic theories created by Thucydides, Machiavelli and etc who did not call themselves realists.
Basic Elements:
If we restrict the term realism, we can find several elements shared by the realists. These are the basic one: a pessimistic view of human nature and others such as the inevitability of international conflicts which would ultimately lead to war; national security and state survival as top priority; nation state as the major actor in the international arena; anarchy as world order and denial of progressive change in the international politics.
These elements are not separate. They stand in a line following a logic sequence. According to their pessimistic view toward human nature, human beings have a desire to maximize their interests. They strive for competitive edge so that they can take advantage of others without being manipulated. Such a process of acquiring influence and advantage over others is actually a process of struggling for power over other men. And as Morgenthau said, “…politics is a struggle for power over men…power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action.” As power is the theme of politics, any rules or regulations are just expediencies for political maneuvers and absence of authority and regulation in international issues would lead to anarchy. In the state of anarchy, any international organizations are perceived less important or unimportant, so nation states are the preeminent actors in world politics. Because states are major actors, they are responsible for the security and welfare of its citizens, so national security and state survival is on the top of states concerns. And besides, national interests become the final arbiter in judging a government’s foreign policy. With power and interests as its top concern and without the restriction of morality and conscience, states would act to their own interests and the credibility of states is undependable. Therefore, there can be no progressive change in world politics compared to the developments that characterize domestic political life.
Realistic approach to international relations started early. We may find the strong words in Thucydides’ works about the Peloponnesian war, when Athens leaders said to the leaders of minor state Melos, “the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept…” In a state of anarchy, power is means and survival is end. States have to act according to the principle of power politics to insure their survival. Such understanding of relations between nations developed through middle ages and seventeenth century, the other two influential realists are Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. To Machiavelli, the state’s prior concern is its independence and survival. To ensure survival, rulers or policy makers have to be both lions and foxes. Lion represents power, which is the only insurance for survival. Fox represents acuity and crafty, which are necessities for its pursuit of self-interest.
Twentith Century Realism
Such thoughts based on rationality and pessimistic view toward human and international society developed and was inherited byHans Morgenthau. He made the best out of the former classical thinkings and became the leading modern classical realist. He epitomized six principles of political realism according to his understanding, politics is rooted in a permanent and unchanging human nature which is basically self-centered and self-interested; politics is “autonomous sphere of action” and cannot therefore be reduced to economics or reduced to morals. State leaders should act in accordance with the dictates of political wisdom; self-interest is a basic fact of the human condition: all people have an interest at a minimum in their own security and survival. Politics is the arena for the expression of those interests which are bound to come into conflict sooner or later. International politics is an arena of conflicting state interests. But interests are not fixed: the world is flux and interests change over time and over space. Realism is a doctrine that responds to the fact of a changing political reality; the ethics of international relations is a political or situational ethics which is very different from private morality. A political leader does not have the same freedom to do the right thing that a private citizen has. That is because a political leader has far heavier responsibilities than a private citizen: he is responsible to the people who depend on him; he is responsible for their security and welfare. The responsible state leader should strive not to do the best but, rather, to do the best that circumstances on that particular day permit. That circumscribed situation of political choice is the normative heart of realist ethics; realists are therefore opposed to the idea that particular nations—even great democratic nations such as the United States—can impose their ideologies on other nations and can employ their power in crusades to do that. Realists oppose that because they see it as a dangerous activity that threatens international peace and security. Ultimately, it could backfire and threaten the crusading country; statecraft is a sober and uninspiring activity that involves a profound awareness of human limitations and human imperfections. That pessimistic knowledge of human beings as they are and not as we might wish them to be is a difficult truth that lies at the heart of international politics.
Morgenthau is the most influential classical political realist in modern times. As IR theory develops in accordance with the changes of international politics, many other realists inherited and took some elements of the classical theory as starting point and created their refined form of IR theories. Such theories are called neorealism. Neorealists ignore the ethics of statecraft and the influence of human nature and focus on the structure of the system. They believe that actors are less important because structures compel them to act in certain ways and structures more or less determine actions, compared with classical realists who think state leaders and their subjective valuations of international relations are at the center of attention. Thus neorealism is also called structural realism. Two of the most important branches of structural realism are defensive realism and offensive realism and the most preeminent and influential representatives are specificallyKenneth N. WaltzandJohn J. Mearsheimer.
Actually in Mearsheimer’s the Tragedy of Great Power Politics, he made a comparison of human nature realism (classical realism), defensive realism (what he called structural realism) and his theory which was called offensive realism. The essential points or questions he compared was what he thought could make a theory complete. Those were, one, what are the causes of the states for competing for power; two, how much power a state is likely to want. As he argued, what distinguishes human nature realism from defensive and offensive realism (which both can be categorized as structural realism) is its focus on human nature. Classical realism believe human beings have a “will to power” and based on its assumption that states are led by human beings, states have an insatiable appetite for power, so they will strive to maximize their power until they become hegemony. On contrary, structural realism focuses on structure. It believes that for the international society is in a state of anarchy, in order to survive, the states are compelled by the structure to gain power in the security competition. As to how much power is enough, defensive realism and offensive realism have different views. According to defensive realism, power is means and security is end and states are not inherently aggressive, so states are seeking enough power to secure a balance of power so that survival could be guaranteed. However, offensive realism says states need as much power as possible, for the more powerful they are relative to their rivals, the better their chances of survival. So it shares the same view with human nature realism on the second question.
As a classical and popular international relations theory, realism is often a target for other doctrines’ critiques. At the same time, new theorists inherit old ideas and make changes according to the critiques and the changes in international society. It is the refined elements of theory that keep realism on the theoretical arena.
在国际关系中现实主义
现实主义是国际关系的其他理论家的目标。 它继承了从修昔底德，马基雅弗利创造经典理论的思想和等谁不自称现实主义者。
基本要素：
如果我们限制现实主义这个词，我们可以找到共同的现实主义者几个要素。 这是一个基本的：如国际冲突的必然性，这将最终导致战争，人性和其他人的悲观看法，国家安全和国家最优先的生存;的民族国家为主要行为者在国际舞台上;无政府状态作为世界秩序和国际政治中的逐步变化的否定。
这些因素不是分开的。 他们站在一条线以下的逻辑顺序。 根据他们对人性的悲观看法，人类都希望自己的利益最大化。 他们争取的竞争优势，使他们可以不受操纵他人的优势。 这种影响力和获取比其他优势的过程实际上是一个较其他人的权力斗争中。 正如摩根索说：“...政治是一种对人的权力斗争...权力是其当前的目标和方式获取，维护和展示它确定政治行动的技术。”权力是政治的，任何规则或主题法规政治演练和权威，在国际问题上只是权宜之计管制的情况下会导致无政府状态。 在无政府状态，任何国际组织被认为不太重要或不重要的，因此，民族国家在世界政治中一个优秀的演员。 因为国家是主要演员，他们负责的安全和其公民的福利，因此，国家安全和生存是国家的首要关切。 再说，国家利益成为判断一个政府的外交政策的最后仲裁者。 随着权力和作为其最关心的利益，没有道德和良心的限制，国家将采取行动，他们自己的利益和国家的信誉，是不可靠的。 因此，不能在世界政治的进步相比，发展的特点国内政治生活。
现实的做法早就开始了国际关系。 我们可能会发现，在对伯罗奔尼撒战争期间，雅典的领导人说，小国家的领导人米洛斯，“司法标准取决于权力平等，迫使这其实强做他们必须修昔底德作品强烈的字眼这样做的权力和弱接受他们所接受...“在无政府状态，权力是手段和生存结束。 各国必须按照权力政治的原则，以确保他们的生存。 通过中世纪十七世纪发达国家国与国关系等理解其他两个有影响现实主义者顷马基维利和霍布斯。 为了马基雅弗利，国家事先关注的是其独立和生存。 为了确保生存，统治者或决策者都必须既狮子和狐狸。 狮子代表权力，这是唯一的生存保险。 福克斯表示敏锐性和狡猾，这是其追求自身利益的必需品。
Twentith世纪现实主义
对理性和对人类和国际社会的悲观看法的这些想法是由发达国家和汉斯摩根索继承。 他指出，前古典的思想最好的，并成为主要的现代古典写实。 他身上集中体现六个原则的政治现实主义据他了解，政治是植根于一个永久不变的人性基本上是自我为中心，自私的，政治是“自主行动的范围”，不能因此降低到经济或减少以道德。 国家领导人应该要按照政治智慧支配，自我利益是人类状况的基本事实：所有的人都有一个自己的安全和生存的最低利率。 政治是这些利益的体现是必然发生矛盾的时候迟早的舞台。 国际政治是相互矛盾的国家利益的舞台。 但是，利益不固定：世界通量和随时间变化的利益及以上的空间。 现实主义是一种学说，响应不断变化的政治现实的事实，对国际关系的道德是一种政治或道德情境这是非常不同的私人道德。 作为一个政治领袖没有同样的自由，做正确的事，一个私人公民。 这是因为政治领导人比普通公民的责任更重远：他是对人民负责的他依靠谁，他是为他们的安全和福利负责。 负责的国家领导人应该努力不要最好的，而是做最好的是，当日情况许可。 这种政治选择限制的情况，是现实主义道德的规范性心脏病;现实主义者，因此反对这一观点，即特定国家的，甚至伟大的民主如美国的国家，可以对其他国家的意识形态和可聘请在十字军对他们的权利做到这一点。 现实主义者反对，因为他们认为这是一个危险的活动，威胁着国际和平与安全。 最终，它可能会适得其反，并威胁到十字军国家，治国方略是一个清醒的和温和的活动，包括对人类的局限和人类的不完善深刻的认识。 这种悲观的人，因为他们的知识，而不是如我们希望他们能够是一个困难的事实，在国际政治的核心。
摩根索是最有影响力的古典现代政治现实主义者。 如按照国际关系理论发展与国际政治的变化，很多其他的现实主义者继承并注意到作为出发点的传统理论的一些内容，创造他们的红外形式的理论提炼。 这种理论被称为新现实主义。 Neorealists忽视治国的道德和人性，重点对系统结构的影响。 他们认为，演员不太重要，因为结构，迫使他们采取行动以某种方式和结构或多或少决定行动，而谁认为国家领导人和国际关系的主观评价在人们关注的焦点古典现实主义者。 因此，新现实主义也被称为结构现实主义。 结构现实主义的最重要的分支两个是防御性现实主义和进攻性现实主义最杰出的和有影响力的代表，是专门肯尼思华尔兹和约翰米尔斯海默 。
其实在米尔斯海默的悲剧的大国政治的，他提出了人性的现实主义（古典写实），防御性现实主义（他所谓的结构现实主义）和他的理论被称为进攻性现实主义的比较。 基本点，比他的提问时，他认为可以作出完整的理论。 这些都是，一，什么是竞争权力的国家的原因，二是多大的权力，是一个国家可能希望。 正如他说，什么区别防御和进攻性现实主义的人性现实主义（这既可以作为结构现实主义归类）是对人性的焦点。 古典现实主义认为，人类有一个“权力意志”和它的前提是各国则是人为造成的，国家有权力的永不满足的胃口，所以他们将力争最大限度地发挥权力，直至他们成为霸权。 正好相反，结构现实主义的重点是结构。 它认为，国际社会正处于无政府状态，为了生存，国家是被迫的结构获得在安全竞争力。 至于多大的权力已经足够了，防御性现实主义和进攻性现实主义有不同的看法。 据防御现实主义，权力是手段，安全结束，国家没有固有的侵略，因此，国家正在寻求足够的力量，以确保权力的平衡，可以保证生存。 然而，进攻性现实主义认为国家需要的尽可能多的权力，为更强大，他们是相对于他们的对手，更好的生存机会。 所以，是与第二个问题上的人性现实主义同样的看法。
作为一个古典和流行的国际关系理论，现实往往是其他理论批评的目标。 同时，新的理论家继承旧思想，并根据变化的批评和国际社会的转变。 这是理论提炼元素，保持现实主义理论的舞台。
