TUM/ School of Governance
POL61306 Emerging Technologies and (In)security
Professor: Dr. Velomahanina T. Razakamaharavo
Date: November 16, 2020
The evolution of the realist perspective in security studies-
The impact of classical realism, neorealism and offensive realism on the
perception of security
Abstract
Current security studies tend to be very critical regarding the role of realism, and most of them tend to only
focus on the role of classical realism. Nevertheless, the purpose of this literature review is to analyze the
evolution of the realist theory based on the different variants it has developed over time, such as
neorealism and offensive realism, as well as the impact this evolution brought to security studies. To
achieve this, this literature review uses the concept of power inside the three variants of realism to
compare their different perceptions of security, as well as reviewing the evolution of the forms of this
theory in their application in the different security dilemmas. As a consequence, this review contends that
realism is a key theory of international relations, and the different variants it contains shows a certain
degree of evolution, which can still be applicable in security issues nowadays.
Introduction
Realism, throughout history has been one of the most influential theories in the field of political science
and international relations (IR), “although dominant attitudes towards realism have varied, realists
arguments and orientations have been central to Western theory and practice of international relations”
(Donnelly, 2004, p.1). One of the main elements of realism is power and how the interest of states
impulses the desire to search for as much power as possible, since security is not guaranteed in the
anarchic international system (Morgenthau, 2006). For this reason it is evident that realism has influenced
significantly security studies and how states have addressed its various dilemmas. Nevertheless, it is not
practical to focus the review just in classical realism, as the majority of the traditional scholarship does,
considering the impact the other forms of realism such as neorealism and offensive realism have had on
security, especially in a more modern context. This narrative review will use literary analysis from
different bibliographic databases, to explain within the literature available the connections between
security and the different forms of realism: Classical realism, Neorealism and Offensive realism, as well as
the critiques regarding these theories, in order to formulate a more complete review.
The conception of power in security in the different forms of realism
Power is one of the main elements in the study of realism, which evidently has had an impact in security.
Nevertheless, it is important to understand that realism has different versions and the conception of power
will be diverse as well. The origins of power in classical realism rely on the human nature of men, who are
relentlessly trying to control the rest for its own selfish benefit (Morgenthau, 2006). According to Cusack
and Stoll for many scholars “anarchy (…) leaves individual states to their own devices. Their interests,
their power, the choices they make, and the actions they undertake, are a response to an environment
where their security has no guarantee” (Cusack & Stoll, 1994, p.35). This generates a notion of insecurity,
according to Shameer this creates a relationship between both concepts (power and security) since “power
and security are related to each other and the security of a state depends upon its power for self-help in an
anarchical world”(Shameer, 2017, p.13). Nonetheless, not all forms of realism would fully agree on this
claim. In contrast, neorealism according to Waltz, power is seen in the perspective of useful means, which
involves having an adequate amount of power in contrast to classical realism, where the more power the
better (1988). Also, in terms of security, the author highlights that security comes first even before than the
concept of power (Waltz, 1988). This point evidently challenges the traditional view of classical realism
considering the predominance of power, especially in terms of security since states need to be always
considering the anarchic nature of the international system, which ultimately means that war is always a
possibility (Kirshner, 2010). Neorealism will agree with the anarchic system concept, but in contrast it
would argue that for this reason security is the main objective and that having more power does not
necessarily translates to more security (Baldwin, 1997). Meanwhile, in the more modern version of
realism, the offensive realist view portrayed by Mearsheimer, it is believed that the international system is
anarchic, nevertheless there is no limit for power and more power will lead to more advantages over the
rest, which will ultimately provide more security, so states should pursue it (Mearsheimer, 2001).
Mearsheimer, however challenges as well the concepts of power and security in the classical realist
perspective by mentioning that offensive realists “believe that the international system forces great powers
to maximize their relative power because that is the optimal way to maximize their security”
(Mearsheimer, 2001). Clearly the concept of power has impacted the perception of security under the
realist perspective, but it is also fundamental to understand that the evolution of realism and its new forms
have modified the understanding and the manner in which security has been put into practice in the past
and in the present as well.
The evolution of realism in security dilemmas
Considering that realism is one of the oldest theories of international relations, this theory has been
evolving in the field of security to adjust more accurately to different security issues. After the Cold War,
nuclear warfare became a fundamental matter, which was greatly influenced by neorealism. Neorealism
played a huge role, by promoting the ideals of nuclear deterrence, which means that nuclear weapons will
reduce the likeliness of war because of the potential of mutual destruction, to the point that it creates a
safer international system (Waltz, 1990). Woods agrees on this point, and in addition mentions,
“neorealists maintain, widespread nuclear proliferation will stabilize the international system. The
structural effect of nuclear proliferation, in this view, is nuclear peace”(Woods, 2002, p.163). Regarding
this perspective offensive realism, through Mearsheimer, agrees on the concept of the Mutual Assured
Destruction (MAD) concept, nevertheless it disagrees that this is the ultimate goal, since for now states
might be afraid of MAD, but ultimately the great powers will continue in their search for more power until
they can become the hegemons and dominate the rest (Mearsheimer, 2001). Regarding this point, going a
bit more to modern times, offensive realism has been gaining importance in the field of artificial
intelligence (AI) regarding security. Among the most relevant examples of the evolution of realism, the
new technologies related to Malevolent AI stand out, which according to Tinnirello “could exploit
weakness in our nuclear weapons storage facilities or create a virus to act against us, but could also be
used to achieve dominance” (Tinnirello, 2018, p.340). Although this is still an emerging issue, Tinnirello
expresses the importance of this matter since nowadays many of the militaries are reinforcing their
military capabilities with AI, in order to become more powerful (Tinnirello, 2018). This example would be
widely accepted in the offensive realist point of view, considering that the system always motivates the
states to gain more power, which in this case would be represented by the incorporation of AI (Snyder,
2002). Although realism has adapted to modern security scenarios with its variants, it is a theory far from
perfect and has received many criticism in the field of security studies.
Criticisms
Realism has been greatly criticized by many scholars in many aspects. One of the most popular critiques
comes from the concept of power. According to Legro and Moravcsik, within classical realism and its
variants there is a lack of a consistent definition of power and what it implies, which is fundamental
considering how this concept has modified the conception of security (1999). Likewise, Williams is not
convinced either with the power relations, as he believes that “Morgenthau's realist concept of politics and
the remarkably narrow definition of political phenomena that he develops emerge as sophisticated and
self-conscious attempts to deal with the relationship between politics, power, and violence” (Williams,
2004, p.641). Johansen would accept this claim, and take it to the next level as he provides a critique
towards neorealism nuclear deterrence theory, considering that studies have proven that in order to
increase security disarmament (including nuclear) is necessary (1982). The author emphasizes that there is
no benefit in leaving in constant fear with nuclear weapons waiting for a possible attack that could be
catastrophic for all (Johansen, 1982). As evidenced, although realism has been a very relevant and
influential theory in security studies, it has also been criticized significantly due to its lack of clarity in
some of its fundamental concepts, and until a certain extent it has lost reliability within security studies.
Conclusion
Throughout history, realism and its different forms have been fundamental for security studies. It is very
interesting to consider how such an old theory has been evolving and it is still being represented, and used
to understand the different security issues. It is clear that in the realist perspective of security, power
dynamics are one of the main components in all three variants (Classical, Neorealism and offensive), and
for a very long time, it has been the focus of analysis in the field of security. Nonetheless, it is quite
surprising that even nowadays with all the criticism it has received, it is still being used to understand the
emerging security dilemmas such as artificial intelligence and its role in warfare. Although the different
forms of realism may not be most accurate and might generate several concerns and detractors, they still
are a very important component of IR scholarship. For this reason, it would not be wise to ignore
completely its perspective, considering the strong link it has had in the study of the major historical
security dilemmas the world has faced.
References
Baldwin, David A. "The concept of security." Review of international studies 23.1 (1997): 5-26.
Cusack, T., & Stoll, R. (1994). Collective Security and State Survival in the Interstate System.
International Studies Quarterly, 38(1), 33-59. doi:10.2307/2600871
Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and international relations. Cambridge University Press.
Johansen, R. C. (1982). Toward an Alternative Security System: Moving beyond the Balance of Power in
the Search for World Security. Alternatives, 8(3), 293–
349. https://doi-org.eaccess.ub.tum.de/10.1177/030437548200800301
Kirshner, J. (2012). The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China. European
Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 53–
75. https://doi-org.eaccess.ub.tum.de/10.1177/1354066110373949
Legro, J., & Moravcsik, A. (1999). Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security, 24(2), 5-55.
Retrieved November 14, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org.eaccess.ub.tum.de/stable/2539248
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, updated edition. The Norton Series in
World Politics (New York: WW Norton & Company, 2014).
Morgenthau,H.(2006). Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin,.
Shameer, M. (2017). Power Maximisation And State Security. World Affairs: The Journal of International
Issues, 21(2), 10-21. doi:10.2307/48531459
Snyder, G. (2002). Mearsheimer's World-Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review
Essay. International Security, 27(1), 149-173. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org.eaccess.ub.tum.de/stable/3092155
Tinnirello, M. (2018). Offensive realism and the insecure structure of the international system artificial
intelligence and global hegemony.
Waltz, K. (1988). The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History,
18(4), 615-628. doi:10.2307/204817
Waltz, K. (1990). Nuclear Myths and Political Realities. The American Political Science Review, 84(3),
731-745. doi:10.2307/1962764
Williams, M. (2004). Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism,
and the Moral Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 58(4), 633-665.
Retrieved November 14, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org.eaccess.ub.tum.de/stable/3877799
Woods, M. (2002). Reflections on Nuclear Optimism: Waltz, Burke and Proliferation. Review of
International Studies, 28(1), 163-189. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org.eaccess.ub.tum.de/stable/20097784
Peer review: The evolution of the realist perspective in security studies
This review article provides a synthesis of the approaches of security in different forms of
realism and shows how this idea has been changing throughout its evolution in the last
decades. It does this by explaining how power and security are related to the classic, neo and
offensive realism theories, followed by a quick view on the change of security perspective in
the nuclear armament race and modern military including AI. It concludes the review by
outlining the most common critiques towards realism in general.
The article clearly states its aim, to point out the connection between security and the three
realism theories and also succeeds to do so in a way that it is understandable for people that
come from this field of research. However, the text could proof to be difficult to understand
for readers that are new to the political theories of international relations. This could be
improved, by implementing a basic definition of realism at the beginning of the article, that
would provide newcomers with the knowledge needed to understand the described, more
complex connections. Choosing a more explanatory comparison between the theoretical
approaches that could be supported by a timeline or a table.
Also I would recommend to start from the origin of the evolution and introductory concepts
to realism from the early thinkers to the modernity and the importance of power and security
for each in a more stated and clear way. This approach is taken from the immediate core of
the analysis, and could be enhanced by a short historical overview to welcome the readers to
connect the different elements of the study.
If however the author is targeting the experts in the field, then I would advice to use more
recent literature and maybe suggest a hypothesis for the coming times. Right now the author
is concentrating on the literature from the 90’s/2000’s (2/3 of the sources are from that period,
and only 3 are from the last 10 years, leaving already a scope of 2 years from now). The
combination of updated literature and a sight into the future (with the suggested hypothesis)
would provide readers, who are already familiar with the topic, a fresh and new perspective
with a message they could take with them, and it would give this article the opportunity to
state a clearer message and to stand out from similar review papers.
Overall it is in my opinion a narrow review for the wideness of the topic, but in the other hand
I can also understand the limitation of the length, it is indeed a really interesting analysis,
even though it’s difficult to read and follow for the common audience due to its perplexity.
The structure and style of writing makes clear, that the author conducted an in-depth research
and knows a lot about the topic. In conclusion this article provides good information about the
impact of power on security and its evolution in the international arena and I would definitely
encourage the author to go on with this project an look further and deeper into the analysis of
the evolution in future reviews or research.
