1.
C. Beithz (1979)
the analogy between individuals in a state of nature and the states in international arena
is misplaced in four ways:
i.
States are not the only
actors.
ii.
The powers of the states are massively unequal.
iii. States
are not independent of each other.
iv. Pattern
of cooperation exist despite the absence
of a global government capable of enforcing
rule.
2.
K. Booth (1995)
realism cannot speak to our world. Survival for the majority of
individuals in global politics is threatened not by armies of “foreign’
states but more often by their own
government or more broadly, structures
of global capitalism which produce and
reproduce the daily rounds of human wrongs such as malnutrition. Death from preventable diseases,
slavery, prostitution and
exploitation.
3.
C. Brown
(1992) the strongest argument against
realisms moral skepticism is that
states employ a moral language of
rights and duties on their
relations with each other.
4.
R. Cox (1986) realism is problem-solving theory. It
accepts the prevailing order, and seeks only to isolate aspects of the system
in order to understand how it works. The
idea of theory serving an emancipatory purpose(alternative world order) is not
in structural realist vocabulary.
5.
M. Hollis and S.
Smith (1990) realism assumes that the method of the natural sciences can
be employed to explain the social world.
Realism can therefore be equated with a
form of positivism which seeks
to uncover causal laws that can
both explain and predict the recurrence of events in world politics
Despite
the flaws notices in realism, its theorists
continue to think about international politics in its terms.
In the 1950s ,
realism enjoyed great boost as the could war entered a new phase which military power in world politics emphasized. Apart from that, the
blood-letting in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s
also helped to rekindle
faith/enthusiasm for realism.