Realism theorists emphasize that the anarchical international system command states to position security as their main interest because other states have a tendency to look opportunities to take benefit of each other by any means such as getting advantage from military force. This notion derived from the philosophy of necessity which views states actions as a result of predictable condition. In addition, realism view states violence as a result of the prevalent power struggle in international system. As Morgenthou said, “International politics is struggle for power”. Within this conditions the daily life in international system is always characterize by struggle among states with the possibility of war in the background.
Institutionalists also focus on the free riding problem, which assumes that nations will tend to cheat and not do their part in producing public goods. International institutions, such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization, can help in establishing and sustaining cooperation among states by reducing transaction costs, helping with monitoring (free riding problem), and offering third party mediation. Neorealism and institutionalism have their differences, but they share also some common assumptions. Therefore, both perspectives agree that states are the main actors in international relations, act in rational self-interest, and are faced with anarchy as an obstacle to cooperation. However, neorealists view anarchy as a threat to survival, while institutionalists see it as a threat to cooperation.
Idealists see the role of power as an undesirable factor to be eliminated. Idealists see realism as a set of assumptions about how and why states behave like they do, rather than a theory of foreign relations. They strongly criticise the realist thesis that the struggle for power and security is natural. They reject such a fatalistic orientation claiming that power is not natural, and simply a temporary phase of human history. They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated.
Many realists saw World War II as the vindication of their theory. Realists argue that the need for survival requires state leaders to distance themselves from traditional morality. Realism taught American leaders to focus on interests rather than on ideology, to seek peace through strength, and to recognise that great powers can coexist even if they have antithetical values and beliefs.  Thucydides, the author of the Peloponnesian War is considered to be the founding father of the realist school of political philosophy.  Amongst others, philosophers like Machiavelli.
It seems to be the common belief among realists that because there is no clear authority that governs states on a global level, thats where anarchy exists; violence is always a constant possibility as each state strives for self preservation. Sovereign states are the main actors within the international system. Anarchy is a social construct and is ‘what states make of it’ according to constructivist thinker Wendt. This means that how well anarchy is
Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument put
Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument
It is important to first define realism the context of the argument, as the theory that seeks to explain or account for conflict. Schroeder’s assertion that realism is a good theory for explaining war, but not peace, can certainly be applied in the context of this question. John Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism” describes an international system that offers Great Powers little choice other than to seek the subversion of other powers (even those which pose no direct threat) “if they want to maximise their own odds of survival”. He argues that the construction of the international system forces powers to act offensively towards other states from a position of fear. With that said, traditional realists, such as Cold War American policy advisor
One of them is about anarchy of international system which means there is no higher authority above states. Another assumption is about security dilemma which means that a state cannot be sure about the intentions of other states whether they focus on use of force or not. The other assumption
There is no greater barrier to clear political thinking than failure to distinguish between ideals, which are utopia, and institutions, which are reality,” (Carr, 93). Utopia and realism are two distinct ways to approach the world yet not one view is superior to the other. Utopianism calls for hope and liberalism, something to aspire to yet it fails to meet the reality of the world. Utopianism’s failure leads into realist theory, which presents a more realistic yet negative view of international relations. By using theories to approach the international structure, a more successful approach to international relations can be