REALISM AND THE POLITY OF TODAY: POST 9/11

By

Saied Tafida Sulaiman

Abstract
Realism has been the dominant theory in international relations. The explanations of the theory helped created
the balance of power that existed in the early and mid-20th century. It played and won a major acceptance in
the first debates of the international relations, it remained relevant in both the second and the third debates
(Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006). After the fall of Berlin wall and the end of cold war, a doubt was cast
on its future. The reemergence of liberal democracy as the dominant and leading theory in the international
system cast serious doubts in the minds of scholars on the future and prospects of realism in the post-cold
war. This paper seeks to explore the relevance of the theory in today’s polity. We shall explore the relevance
while examining the major arguments and characteristics that built the theory and its applicability the
international system post 9/11.

Key Words: Realism, Relevance, Post 9/11

1
Introduction
The anarchy in the early 20th century, the struggle by states and individuals to control the affairs of others
and the failure of the independent democratic state to yield to the Kant’s expected peace paved the way for
the reality (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006). The world witnessed: the First World War (1914 to 1918);
the emergence of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler; the Great depression; and subsequently the Second World War
(1939 -1945), a challenge that defied common explanations. These challenging situation gave Edward Carr
and Hans Morgenthau the level ground to keep aside the utopian liberalism and focus on what is real – Realism
(Molloy, 2003). Realism has a foundation based on the three major concepts of social sciences: Power,
Conflict and War (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006).
The actions in the international system strongly became state segregated after the 30 years’ war and the treaty
of Westphalia. Carr who is known for his twenty-year crisis (1939) and Morgenthau known for his Politics
among Nations (1948) were the first set of scholars that created the imprint that is today called realism. Their
works, however, was influenced by great classical scholars with the same view. Scholars like Hobbes: The
Leviathan, (1651); Machiavelli: The Prince (1532); and the founding father of courage in the face of reality,
Thucydides. These entire mentioned scholars share the thoughts that there is anarchy in the international
system, Human beings are inherently evil, and the states are the main actors. They strongly accept that there
cannot be a world government. They believe that the world is based on the principle of survival of the fittest,
hence both people and state struggle to change their disadvantage position. As a result, there is always constant
conflicts and struggle which increase the competition among states (Wallace, 1964).
This paper will seek to understand the underlining principles that build the foundation of realism and its
applicability in today’s Polity of Post 9/11. To make meaningful insight the paper shall review few of the
founding fathers of realism and their views. We shall look at the metamorphoses of the theory today and the
reemergence of the struggle of states in the international system.

Thucydides (460 -395 BC):

In his article courage in the face of reality, Zumbrunnen (2002) analyzed how Nietzsche (1990, in
Zumbrunnen, 2002) described Thucydides. Where he drew a broad definition that defines and distinguishes
Thucydides from other ancient philosophers like Plato who flee into the ideal world instead of the real world.
For him, Plato's flee into ideal pictured him as a coward but Thucydides has himself under control as he
portrayed control over things as real as they could be with courage. Thucydides is described as the philosopher
who encourages states in the international system to have courage, to confront and exert power. Three

2
variables that are seen as the foundation of the concept of realism. Zumbrunnen described Thucydides as “the
grand summation, the last manifestation of that strong, stern, hard matter-of-factness instinctive to the old”
(Zumbrunnen, 2002, p. 7).
Thucydides observed the formation of the Greek nations against each other and as the alliance for each other.
He observed the relationships and wars between Sparta, Athens, Persia and Macedonia. He analyzed the
combination of the Hellas (Greek city states) and the neighboring cultures and states. He looked at the relative
power difference which shows inequality. The striking fact according to his discovery is that the inequality
was natural. Not disputing Aristotle assertion that ‘a man is a political animal, Thucydides assert that animals
are not equal in their innate ability to acquire, feed and control (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006). He further
added that smaller states have to ally with each other to stand (Like the Hellenic league) or fall to the might
of the bigger states with better standing in the international system. He further added that decision by statement
has international consequences hence emphasizing prudence and caution as an enshrined ethics in the
international system.
Thucydides x-rayed the relationship among the Greek generals on his Justice Power and Human nature and
concluded that Justice can never be equally applied to all at all times. Justice is applied as determined by the
necessities in the international system (Karl, 2013). Karl argued that he is the first recorded scholars to
describe the international system as anarchical. And that states need to build a front and power in order to
survive. Such view is understandable coming from a philosopher seen as always skeptical, rational, never
superstitious, religious or philosophical (Wallace, 1964). Thucydides shows the need for skepticism and care
in executing state affairs. He asserts that, decision states make has limited choices and hence all actions must
be well thought of before execution or else the consequences will be severe (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G.,
2006). It is at this juncture he calls for foresight, prudence, caution and judgment as the right characteristics
of a leader to be portrayed in the international system. The warning of Thucydides is recently tested in the
recent United State of America elections of 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
The US as a world power, due to their economic position and Technological advancement especially in
military might. The Election of Donald Trump is seen by many as a major mistake the US made because it
will cost the state so much. Donald Trump is characterized as unstable, volatile, inexperience and issues out
unguided statements (Williams, 2015). Immediately after his elections, because of his unstable statesmanship,
states and alliances in the world issued strong warnings indicating that they may be with him if he portrayed
a good ‘democratic image’ and they may reject him if otherwise. This statements where issued by the
American Allies in European, that is Germany, France, and Britain (Hincks, 2016).

3
Thucydides drew this idea more than 2,500 years ago, and it is still relevant today. He drew his inspiration
from his famous study of the Peloponnesian War (431 - 404) where he identifies the great power as Athens
and small power as Melos during the state of conflict between this two cities. He pointed out to the Malians
appeal for justice from the Athenians, which to them meant, respect for their homes, honor, and dignity as an
independent state. However, Thucydides pointed out that Justice in the international system is simply an
applied concept. He asserted that “Justice is a special kind in international relations. It is not about equal
treatment for all; it is about knowing your proper place, about adapting the natural reality of unequal power”
(Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006, p. 63).

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 -1527)

A scholar of the medieval period, Niccolo Machiavelli’s idea and thoughts were revered and referred today
in matters of the state and state relations. He is seen through his famous book the prince and taken as a hero
through the notions he created for leaders in the world today. The famous of all his ideas is the notion that it
is better to be feared than to be loved if you cannot have both (Langton, J. & Deitz, M.G, 1987)
In his understanding of state and international relations, Machiavelli portrays power (the lion) and deception
(the fox) as the two essential ingredients of foreign policy and the international system. For him the most
important idea or political value a statesman should seek for in the international relations, is the advantage of
defending the interest of his state (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006). However when it comes to other states,
he advised that “The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to suffer it to
live on under its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants”
(Machiavelli, 2012, p. 11). Proving that if the state portrays itself as non-strong in the international system, it
is giving open invitations to other invaders to occupy it. For that being ruthless and cunny is the best way to
survive in the international system.
Like Thucydides, Machiavelli also advised on the need for state men and women to be calculative in their
decision and to be prudent. He added that they need to be lions and foxes base on the need that might arise
and base of the changing situation in the international system. For Machiavelli, the world is a dangerous place
and the people in it are also dangerous. Because everybody is struggling to maximize his gains. He insisted
that if one need to survive he has to be wise and calculative to be a conqueror or to pretend to be the victim.
And when the need is to lead and maintain power, an actor has to be a master of techniques to use the art of
being a lion and a fox and knowing when it is best to apply what. He advised against waiting for things to
happen, he advice conscious attempt to make things happen. He also advised against waiting to be given,

4
instead, he advised that a person should take it (Langton, J. & Deitz, M.G, 1987). Machiavelli put it as “He
need never hesitate, however, to incur the reproach of those vices without which his authority can hardly be
preserved; for if he will consider the whole matter, he will find that there may be a line of conduct having the
appearance of virtue” (Machiavelli, 2012, p. 40)
The Machiavellian policy provided a guide to most states and individuals on how to leave in the anarchic
world, thereby portraying international system as anarchical. Machiavelli principles of the Prince and the state
has to be ruthless (Lion) and Corny (fox) for power and advantage has transcended classical realism and it is
seen as a major rule of survival in today’s world. None the less the ingenuity of the Princes, some scholars
actually see it as a trap and motivator for destruction (Langton, J. & Deitz, M.G, 1987).

Thomas Hobbes: (1588 – 1679)

Among the scholars ascribed to classical realism, after Thucydides and Machiavelli, the next important name
that comes to bear is the name of Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes developed his ideas through his book the
Leviathan. The book revolutionizes political thought and created what today we term as republics and states
(Cooper, 2007). For Hobbes, human nature is weak and everybody thinks he is better than others. The
strongest can plan to kill and or dominate the weak, but the weak too can dominate the strong if they did it in
a group. Which he believe can be best understood if we imagine people living in a ‘natural world’ before the
inventions of any institution known as a sovereign state (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006). Hobbes, (1651)
emphasize that the state formations is the key “of getting themselves (people) out from that miserable
condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when
there is no visible power to keep them in awe” (p. 103)
Hobbes identifies the state of nature as the permanent condition where people are in the state of war. He
asserts that there is no any escape from the state of nature unless people submit to the law that will “tie them
by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants, and observation of those laws of nature set
down” (Hobbes, 1651, p. 103). Suggesting that the only means of escape is by people coming together and
aligning their fares into each other to build a pact that will warranty their safety (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G.,
2006). However, the biggest pending issue is the security dilemma as the people come together to form states.
The decision and the submission with people to form states is always easy, guided by emotions, general
understanding of what is right and existing norms. However, according to Hobbes, this is not possible in the
international system. There is no escape from the anarchy and domination of the smaller states by the bigger
states, and there is no escape of the weaker states from the stronger states. The state can attempt to organize

5
themselves into regional bodies, but the extent of the application and implementations of the established laws
will always be limited (Cooper, 2007).
For Hobbes people are always weak and can always sleep, feel piety and understand, but all these characters
are not found in a state. A state does not sleep nor does it have piety. Borrowing from Thucydides, justice is
relative in the international system and upon that Hobbes asserts “justice is but a word, without substance”
(Hobbes, 1651, p. 206) and that state domination is inevitable. While some people are busy in a state others
will be watching, while some interest are protected by a certain action some interest are not, while some are
satisfied by the little they have some are not. Such chaotic situation makes state a more complicated entity
that cannot be simply subdued to common laws hence growing and brewing the anarchy. He insisted that
since the state protects the individual citizen from other individuals it is, therefore, the responsibility of the
citizens to protect the state and its territories.
It is upon the ideas and thoughts of these aforementioned great scholars, the idea of classical realism is built
and upon it, Carr and Morgenthau's build their Neo-classical realism.

Edward Hallett Carr

The incidences in Europe around 1890 to 1945 built a strong augment to prove that the liberalist movement
is just a flawed system. In fact, it propelled a great Historian known for his 14 Volume History of the Soviet
Union to refute all ideas on marketism. He advice scholars to come back to reality. Hence, the birth of the
term realism. Just like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes; Edward Hallett Carr (1892 -1982) observed the
happenings in Europe and concluded that it is time to divert from the utopian liberalism and revert to realism.
He called the dominant democratic liberalism utopian because according to him, it cannot stand. He observed
that there is a profound conflict between the democracies due to deficiencies imbedded in capitalism and
continuous trade to bring peace, and suggested that cooperation may not be possible, so the best way out is
for states to armed themselves and exert authority from the position of strength as suggested by the earlier
classical Realist Philosophers.
Carr Made a cardinal observations that states are not equal in the international system hence there is no room
for a struggle to be one. The dominant states will always love to keep their position while the weaker states
will always struggle to take a new position. This constant conflict can only be explained by the Hegelian
dialects which proves the world is in constant conflict and it will forever be because each state will always
want to reverse its position. And this conflict will never allow states to function as liberals imagine it hence
the need to choose realism. Carr Argument is not only supported by the Past classical like Thucydides,

6
Machiavelli, and Hobbes. It can also be explained from a position of strength as deduces by a great Italian
Philosopher Vilfredo Pareto in his theory of the circulation of elites. According to Pareto People are born
differently with a different mental capacity and advantages to either place them in the front or at the fore. He
insisted that people who have better advantage become the elites in the society. However that is not the case
with the weaker ones. The weaker members will always struggle to take the positions of the strong ones
thereby causing conflicts (Crillo, 1983). This situation is correct when compared with states in the
international system.
States are formed differently and each had a history of strategic advantages that put it in the front. On the
discovery, the smaller states will away struggle to take the position and enjoy the benefit which certainly leads
to conflicts. The stronger states are not likely to give in to change of position easily, hence must of them resort
to the position of strength to keep might. These actions build the definition that Carr is trying to make. In His
20 years, Crises Carr insisted that the liberal democrats misinformed people for so long, hence misleading the
world to believe that international relations can be seen in terms of harmony (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G.,
2006). He insists that, if that were the case, the democracies would not have fought each other in the first and
Second world war. If human nature is good as portrayed by the liberalist, the world would not have witnessed
Mussolini of Italy, Hitler of Germany who were both brought to power via democracy. The Lenin Revolution
and the eventual succession to power by Stalin in Russia also stands as a good example. Carr’s View in
Neoclassical realism was cemented by Hans J. Morgenthau and the views were seen clearly and they both
choose to be in the reality rather than utopian liberalist (Molloy, 2003)

Hans Morgenthau (1904 – 1980)

Morgenthau’s Publication: ‘Politics among Nations’ (1948) became a celebrated classical realism, because of
its ability to explain the political situation in Europe and America at the time. It is based on the established
facts pointed out by the earlier classical realist and his contemporary, Edward Carr (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen,
G., 2006). For Morgenthau Human being and their nature is the foundation upon which international relations
is build. And Human beings always have self-interest and are power seeking. A strong ingredient that could
always result in conflict. In his words “The world imperfect as from the rational point of view, is the result of
forces inherent in human nature” (Morgenthau, 2006, p. 3). Enough to be exemplified with what was
mentioned earlier of the leaders in Europe which include Hitler, Mussolini, and Lenin. Despotic leaders with
wide popular support from their people despite their despotic activities (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006).

7
Morgenthau portrayed human beings as a more political beings who are born to pursue power and wealth and
they enjoy those fruits. For Morgenthau, it is desire for power that drives human beings into actions to stay in
good position at all cost which most often leads to conflict. For Morgenthau (2006) Political Realism is based
on a choice of which type of a man, a person wants to be. He identified a different kind of men to include
“Economic Man” political man”, “moral man”, “religious man” among others. For him, a purely political man
is a terrible beast with no any sense of humanity and will be lacking in all moral restraints. A moral man is a
fool because he will not be focused and will not be prudential and a religious man is a saint with no worldly
desires. For him, the best political realism is when one understand this faces of men and try to strike a balance
between them (Morgenthau, 2006, p. 15). It is the environment upon which the security of the state is build
and the security beyond the state is impossible (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006).
Morgenthau is known for his criticism of the liberalist in power including his country of the United States.
He went against President Wilsons request that nations and governments most conduct themselves in the
orderly manner like citizens in the state. For him, such argument is not only wrong but also ill-advised because
it refuses to recognize the difference between public sphere of politics and the private domestic lives (Jackson,
R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006). That for leading a state some activities like spying, lying, cheating are employed
as a mechanism of protection which otherwise in a domestic environment it is forbidden. For him, the
centerpiece of international relations is the recognition that poetical ethics and absolutely different from
private ethics. Such knowledge is important especially in understanding international security dilemma, where
some evil actions may be taken to avoid further evil actions (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006). He inset
that realist is against any imposition of ideologies on others even if it is the by the great nations like the USA.

Convergence of Views
Drawing from the views above, From Thucydides courage to Machiavelli Fox and Lion, to Hobbes Human
Nature and Finally the elaborations by Carr and Morgenthau in the 20th Century, it is clear all the realist stand
on neutral ground that portrayed some common principles. Susan hack (1987) sees the points raised by this
great authors as ambiguous, a view we intend to elaborate and remove the ambiguity. To make sense of the
views it will be fair to itemize the common ideas the philosophers share.
A common idea upon which most analysis about the field is drawn. All of the classical realist theorists agreed
on a general term that there is an anarchy in the international system and the states are the main actors in the
international system. They agree that international relations is a relation of states and actions are taken by
states to maintain position in the international system. Secondly, there cannot be any world government or

8
rules to guide the affairs of the states. Justice in the international relations is relative. Actions are taken which
may be evil but with an intention to prevent other evil acts. Thirdly, that human nature is inherently bad and
wicked. The evil nature of man pushes him to aspire and to be in a constant struggle to change his status for
better both as a person and as a state. Fourthly, that there can never be an everlasting peace in the international
system. This is because of the imbalance in power structure and the constant struggle to change status. The
Liberalist can only try to build a deceptive idea that there will be peace, but according to the realist, it is not
attainable. That society will always keep the path of history, the history of constant struggle and change of
status. And fifthly is that the main focus of a state is security power and sovereignty. States can take some
actions just to protect that. Some of the actions may not necessarily be just or fair but necessary. To further
make meaning to the general Assumptions, of realisms. Paul Wolfowitz (2009) asserts that realism is seen by
many as the theoretical framework that made it clearer on the rules of engagement especially by preparing
parties to be ready and engage. To assert power and prove a point in the international system (Wolfowitz,
2009).

Progression of Realism and the Balance of power.

Realism gained wide acceptance as the major theoretical form of explanations in the international system
between the early 20th Century up to the 1960s. It was later redefined by the balance of power that existed in
the cold war era. The interjection of behavioralism also helped the development of the theory with the
contributions of Thomas Schelling’s ‘Strategic Realism’ and Kenneth Waltz Neo-realism. Realism has also
enjoyed indebting support in the society because of its history in the roots of all the major religions in the
world - Christianity, Islam and Judaism. All these religions shared a view that showed human being as greedy.
It shows the history of war and conquest as a means to exert power. And it shows brothers killing each other
to keep power (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006).
The realists see the society from the real activities and they try to explain the anarchy in the international
system and the struggle by states to maintain and assert power. Their views were successful because of the
incidences of their time. Thucydides looked at his society from the waring events of the Greek states, Sparta,
Athens and struggle with Persia. Carr and Morgenthau looked at the states from the First World War to the
Second World War and the Cold Wars. They looked at the society and international system and deduced their
views. From the Fascist Mussolini of Italy, the Stalin Russia, and Hitler Germany. Realism has explained a
lot and has taken the lead in the first debates. They opined on the balance of power of the states, the debacle
of USA and USSR, the influence of NATO in the cold war and the checks of EU to Germany. Explanations

9
that help saw many states empowering themselves with nuclear weapons for the nuclear deterrence, forming
alliances and spending more on Security, Military, and Arms.
Until its decline, with the application of behaviorism in the research and the fall of the Berlin wall. Realism
was the dominant theory in the international system that proves the stability theory. Several critiques tackle
the theory on it narrowness and inability to explain international cooperation and the relationship Between
USA and UK. Other critiques tried to draw out that the theory is less relevant considering the recent rise in
internal communal clashes and the rise of the terror war which mostly are transnational. To tackle such
explanations, Schillings Strategic and Realism, Waltz’ Neo-Realism try to proof the relevance by applying
some modifications in the classical realist theory. The Neo-Realist based their argument on the classical
realism only without the belief that human nature is evil. And has an influence in the struggle for the
international domination. Schelling (1980, in (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006) tried to show the nature of
war and world conflict from the game theory as linked to nuclear and arms rivalry. While, Waltz (1979) try
to show the “long Peace” that is caused by the balance of power of the rivalry between USA and USSR
(Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006).The basis of assumptions or realist remains dominant until today.

Critique
As a front runner in the theories of international relations, Realism is redefined and criticized by various
scholars in an attempt to show its deficiency or remodify it to cover more grounds. The criticism came from
the theory and outside. From within the theory, Wolfowitz, (2009) pointed out some of the shortfalls in the
theory. He insists that the theory is narrow and does not take cognizance of internal players like the role of
other states in economic exploitations and the manipulations of Multinational companies. In his article
Realism, he insists that Realism needs to develop a face that will look beyond decapitating state to prove
power while hidden behind that expansionism, is the zeal for economic domination. Additionally, from within,
the theory, Neo-Realist like Kenneth Waltz questions the classical theorist on the evil nature of man. The Neo
liberalist portrays the state as the major actor in the international system, but instead that man is not inherently
evil (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006).
The international society criticized Realism as not only narrow but not inclusive of all international relations
as a dialogue of all of different IR voices. Martin Wight (1991, in Jackson, R. & Sorensen, G., 2006) is the
leading critique who emphasized the international relations is merely a dialogue between great philosopher of
international relations (Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G., 2006).

10
Post-Cold war the Journey to Post 9/11
The balance of power during the cold war era built as the apex of explanations of realism. The questions
remain with the fall of the berlin wall does it mean we have seen the end of realism? Different scholars
proffered explanations to the emergence of new impediment that showed that hegemony and balance of power
will continue. John J. Marchsheirmer (2001 in Jackson, R. & Sorensen, G., 2006) propounded that sates that
seek regional hegemony are very aggressive and that regional hegemony will not end with the fall of Berlin
Wall. It may be limited by distance and the sea, which means states within a regional blocks are more likely
to feel the impact of their neighboring states. But state Hegemony will always be. For Mearscheimer, all states
as predicted by realism will struggle to maintain the regional Hegemon democratically as preached by Wolsfiz
(2009). The USA is already in control of the north and the south America, Germany controls Europe as a
Hegemon and China is likely to control the whole of Asia if not the world.
Another fact that is real is also the discussion on the state and terror, a fight seen by many scholars as a cross
border conflict a key item in understanding the classical realism. Some scholars insist that the nature of
terrorism and guerrilla warfare contradicts the notion of realism and state. This is not likely the case in the
international system. Because most of the terror actions are intended to inflict a pain against a group of people
in a state, its citizens or it is carried out by a state (Rourke, 2005). And the actions in response is done by a
state. Most of the terrorist organizations form a structure of a state and operate within bases. At this juncture,
it is pertinent to note that, the acts are still conducted against states. And the perpetrators being a state or
groups are motivated by their nature of attempt to recapture position of strength against the opposition party
hence portraying all the elements that prove realism in the Post 9/11.
The reemergence of the cold war as we witnessed today is also a point to prove the relevance of realist in the
international system. Vilidmir Putin the Rusian president has taken every step to prove to the world that his
country is back to its military might. It is back to challenge every foreign hegemony. It has proven that in
Syria (Dearden, 2016). Russia purposely rejects all call by the international community to deceit from a certain
action even at the threat of war. The case of Ukraine and Syria stands as a good example in the past. Lately,
the Russian president is reported to have rekindled the KGB. A combined foreign intelligence and internal
security that reigned during the cold war. November 2016, the Russian president also ordered his country to
withdraw from the international criminal court.
In an international system where such actions are common, the only relevant explanation that comes to mind
is the relevance of realism in understanding the international system. The new front of state hegemony in the
international system has also manifested in the works of liberalism. Mega state goes out in pretenses of

11
economic cooperation but ends up dominated a state economically and exploiting it to build an entity so
powerful that the smaller states become their slaves. The present day China, America, and Europe are a good
example of such exploitations. Another good example is the NATO expansion to the Eastern Europe as
recommended in 1995 as a way to build democracy and expand security. Such relations has only proven to be
exploitative and Hegemonic control to create a market for the bigger states.

Conclusion
To answer the questions; that if it is true that realism is relegated to the fore in the post-cold war theorist.
Proves not true. This is because, state relations in the early 20th century, and is no different from the relations
in the late 20th Century and the 21st century. Down the history lane, people had live together in clusters with
qualities and cooperation even before states are formed (in the stone and Iron Ages). Over the time the nature
of relations and of the formations changes until states are formed today. Unfortunately the nature of man
wanting to change his status and amass control, which is the basis of evil in the state never changed. This
assumption made the applicability of realism at all times possible because the existing states as hegemonies
still exist.
Today the states are still the actors. The states do not apply universals justice and the states do not have any
morality, therefore expecting a state to act in a certain way is an already failure before it even started. Hence
the actual idea realism tries to portray. Realism must be given the credit for their ability to theorize on what
has happened and what is happening in the international system. Unlike the Utopian Liberalist who believes
in the ‘ifs’, the realist view is defined by the incidences that existed in the international system. They know
about it epistemologically because it is observable and real (realism) and methodologically they can observed
the incidences and analyzed history as a base of study techniques to arrive at an outcomes.

12
References
Bradly, R. Swartz, N. (1988). Possible Worlds: Introduction to Logic and and Its Philosophy (Forth ed.).
Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company. Retrieved from
http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/pw/text/pw_all.pdf
Cooper, J. e. (2007, September). THomas Hobbes on the Political Theorist's Vocation. The Historical
Journal, 50(3), 519 -547. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20175110
Crillo, R. (1983, April). Was Vilfredo Pareto Really a 'Precursor' of Fascism. The American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, 42(2), 234-245. doi:ww.jstor.org/stable/3486644
Dearden, L. (2016). VLadimir Putin orders Russia to withdraw support for international Criminal court.
Independent.
Haack, S. (1987, November). Realism. Synthese, 73(2), 275-299. doi:: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20116454
Hincks, J. (2016, November 9). World Leaders React to Donald Trump Winning the U.S. Elections. Times
Magazine. Retrieved December 23, 2016, from http://time.com/4563879/donald-trump-president-
reactions-world-leaders/
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan (E-Book ed.). London: Green Dragon. Retrieved from
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf
Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. W. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment. (E. Jephcuott, Trans.) Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Jackson, R. & Sorenssen, G. (2006). Introduction to Interanational Relations Theories and Approaches
(Third ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univristy Press.
Karl, W. (2013). Thucydides on Policy, Strategy and War Termination. Naval War College Review, 66(4),
47 - 85.
Langton, J. & Deitz, M.G. (1987, December). Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or Teaching the Prince. The
American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1277 - 1288. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1962589
Machiavelli, N. (2012). The Prince (Dover Thrift Editions ed.). Kindle Edition: Dove Publications.
Molloy, S. (2003). Dialectics and Transformation: Exploring the International Theory of E.H> Car.
International Journal of Politics and Society, 17(2), 279 -306. Retrieved from
www.jstor.org/stable/20007679
Morgenthau, H. J. (2006). Politics Among Nations: The struggle for Power and Peace (Seventh ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Rourke, J. T. (2005). International Politics On the World Stage (Revised ed.). New York USA: Mc Graw
Hill.
Wallace, W. P. (1964, Winter). Thucydides. Poenix, 18(4), 251 -261. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1086359
Williams, V. (2015). Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Distrupted Electoral College: High
Unfavorable Ratings, Multi-Candidates General Elections Ballots, and Pursuing the 'Art of the Deal"
with Free-Aggent Electores in December 2016. Syracuse J.L. & Civic Engagement , 1. Syracuse.
Retrieved December 22, 2016, from
http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1927&context=scholar
Wolfowitz, P. (2009). Realism. Foreign Policy, 174(September/October), 66-68.
doi:www.jstor.org/stable/20684911
Zumbrunnen, J. (2002, Winter). Courage in the Face of Reality: Nietzches Administration for Thucydides.
Polity, 35(2), 237 -263. Retrieved from htto://www.jstor.org/stable/3235499

13