Abstract
The article refers to debates inside realism on rationality of international processes. It reveals that even a basic assumption of states calculating their interests and choosing optimal political strategies provoked contradictions among realist theories. Both prominent Cold War realists, Morgenthau and Waltz, differed in their views on the role of leaders, the impact of the international system and states’ rational response to systemic constraints. The hegemonic rivalry stream of realism took the “middle ground” in this debate. Yet, the complex international reality after the fall of the bipolar order makes the realist considerations even more difficult. It encourages a wider openness to domestic nuances of foreign policymaking but reduces a chance for more general and rational schemes of states’ international behavior. Post-Cold War realists declare a need of systemic and rational frames of their analysis but differ in their views on how much of the domestic context should be absorbed to comprehend contemporary international processes. The integration of miscalculations and misperceptions in leaders’ political decisions and the rational frames of a state’s foreign policy is a clear problem for realism.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call