REALISM

Relations among states take place in the absence of a world govern-

ment. For realists, this means that the international system is anarchical.
International relations are best understood by focusing on the dis-
tribution of power among states. Despite their formal legal equality, the
uneven distribution of power means that the arena of international
relations is a form of ‘power politics’. Power is hard to measure; its
distribution among states changes over time and there is no consensus
among states about how it should be distributed. International
relations is therefore a realm of necessity (states must seek power to
survive in a competitive environment) and continuity over time.
When realists contemplate change in the international system, they
focus on changes in the balance of power among states, and tend to
discount the possibility of fundamental change in the dynamics of
the system itself. The following key thinkers all subscribe to these
basic assumptions in their explorations of the following questions: (1)
What are the main sources of stability and instability in the international
system? (2) What is the actual and preferred balance of power among
states? (3) How should the great powers behave towards one another
and towards weaker states? (4) What are the sources and dynamics of
contemporary changes in the balance of power? Despite some shared
assumptions about the nature of international relations, realists are not
all of one voice in answering these questions, and it would be wrong
to believe that shared assumptions lead to similar conclusions among
them. In fact, there is sharp disagreement over the relative merits of
particular balances of power (unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity).
There is also much debate over the causal relationship between
states and the international pressures upon them, and the relative
importance of different kinds of power in contemporary international
relations.