ABSTRACT This article takes up the important recent argument of Mearsheimer and Rosato that states are rational in their foreign policy behavior and that their rationality can be defined in terms of the quality of their decision-making process. In particular, they define a state decision as rational if the decision makers engage in a deliberative process with a final choice based on a credible theory. First, I take up other notions of rationality familiar from the statistical and economic literature, arguing that these other definitions are more useful for realist theory. Then, by contrast with Mearsheimer and Rosato, I argue that what is fundamental about realism in international relations theory is a focus on the subjectively rational pursuit of state security, regardless of the process used to attain it. This approach incorporates most realist theorizing while allowing for the great diversity of state behavior predicted by various realist doctrines and observed in reality. Within realism, I maintain that the distinction between revisionist and status quo states cannot be elided as neorealism attempts to do. Finally, I argue that domestic politics, too, is best understand in realist terms, even in democratic states.
Read full abstract