Education Portal for Students in India

Llewellyn Llewellyn has said that realism or realist school is not a school of jurisprudence. Instead it may be called as a Sociological Jurisprudence.
View complete answer

Is Dworkin a realist?

These concepts were important central tenets of Realism which Dworkin, explicitly or otherwise, has accepted and play foundational roles in his theory of law as integrity. There are crucial aspects where he deviates from Realism but Dworkin and the Realists have more in common than most think.
View complete answer

What is the realism theory of jurisprudence?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Legal realism is a naturalistic approach to law ; it is the view that jurisprudence should emulate the methods of natural science, i.e., rely on empirical evidence, Hypotheses must be tested against observations of the world.

• Legal realists believe that legal science should only investigate law with the value-free methods of natural sciences, rather than through philosophical inquiries into the nature and meaning of the law that are separate and distinct from the law as it is actually practiced.
• Indeed, legal realism asserts that the law cannot be separated from its application, nor can it be understood outside of its application.

As such, legal realism emphasizes law as it actually exists, rather than law as it ought to be. Locating the meaning of law in places such as legal opinions issued by judges and their deference or dismissal of past precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis, it stresses the importance of understanding the factors involved in judicial decision making.
View complete answer

Who is the founder of realism school?

American years and political realism – Hans Morgenthau is considered one of the “founding fathers” of the realist school in the 20th century. This school of thought holds that nation-states are the main actors in international relations and that the main concern of the field is the study of power,

Morgenthau emphasized the importance of “the national interest,” and in Politics Among Nations he wrote that “the main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.” Morgenthau is sometimes referred to as a classical realist or modern realist in order to differentiate his approach from the structural realism or neo-realism associated with Kenneth Waltz,

Recent scholarly assessments of Morgenthau show that his intellectual trajectory was more complicated than originally thought. His realism was infused with moral considerations—though not always acknowledged as such—and during the last part of his life he favored supranational control of nuclear weapons and strongly opposed the U.S.
View complete answer

Who wrote realist jurisprudence?

About the Author Karl N. Llewellyn (1893-1962) was professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
View complete answer

Is Thomas Hobbes realist?

Abstract Thomas Hobbes has recently been cast as one of the forefathers of political realism. This article evaluates his place in the realist tradition by focusing on three key themes: the priority of legitimacy over justice, the relation between ethics and politics, and the place of imagination in politics.
View complete answer

Was Karl Marx a realist?

For Marx is often seen to be a ‘deficient’ realist because he advocates a form of historicism. At his worst, Marx’s occasional adherence to a ‘monistic hyper-naturalism’ champions a form of biological evolution for the social sciences (Manicas 1987: 116).
View complete answer

Who is the father of realist theory of law?

Karl Llewellyn – The founding figure of American legal realism is often said to be the jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841–1935). His 1897 lecture “The Path of the Law” (published in the Harvard Law Review ) sounded many of the major themes of realism: the difference between law and morality (a theme also associated with legal positivism), the claim that law is often on its face indeterminate in its application to particular cases, and the suspicion that in deciding cases judges are often influenced by nonlegal considerations—for example, their views about economic policy or fairness.

Those themes received their most-extensive development in the work of Llewellyn, who had been influenced by the late-19th and early 20th-century German free-law movement, a protorealist school of jurisprudence, According to Llewellyn, in most cases that reach the appellate level of review (where they are heard by an appeals court), the law is generally indeterminate in the sense that the authoritative legal sources (such as statutes, precedents, and constitutions) do not justify a unique decision.

Indeterminacy, according to Llewellyn, arises primarily because of the existence of conflicting but equally legitimate canons of interpretation for these sources, so the very same legal source could be read in at least two different ways. For example, Llewellyn demonstrated that U.S.

Courts had endorsed both of two contradictory principles of statutory construction, namely: “A statute cannot go beyond its text” and “To effect its purpose, a statute may be implemented beyond its text.” If a court could properly appeal to either canon when faced with a question of statutory interpretation, it could legitimately arrive at least two different interpretations of the meaning of the statute in question.

Regarding such cases, the question posed by the realists was: Why did the judge reach the conclusion he did, given that law and principles of legal reasoning did not require him to do so? Llewellyn made a similar argument about conflicting but equally legitimate ways of interpreting precedent, which he called the “strict” and the “loose” views of precedent.

According to Llewellyn, a judge almost always has the latitude to characterize a decision in an earlier case in either a highly fact-specific way, so as to distinguish it from the present case, or in a way that abstracts from the specific facts of the earlier case, so as to make it binding in the present case.

Thus, according to Llewellyn, judges are never really constrained by precedent. Like most American realists, however, Llewellyn nonetheless believed that judicial decisions fall into predictable patterns (though not, of course, the patterns one would predict just by looking at the existing rules of law).

Focusing primarily on disputes in business law, Llewellyn argued that what judges really do in such cases is attempt to enforce the uncodified but prevailing norms of the commercial culture in which the dispute arose. In one famous example, Llewellyn identified a series of New York cases in which the courts had applied the rule that a buyer who rejects a seller’s shipment by formally stating his objections thereby waives all other objections.

Llewellyn noted that the rule seems to have been rather harshly applied in these cases, since either the buyer may not have known of other defects at the time of rejection or the seller could not have cured the defects anyway. A careful study of the underlying facts, however, revealed that in each case in which the rule seemed to have been harshly applied, what had really happened was that the market had gone sour, and the buyer was seeking to escape the contract,

• The judge, being “sensitive to commerce or to decency” (as Llewellyn put it), applied the unrelated rule about rejection to frustrate the buyer’s attempt to escape the contract.
• Thus, the commercial norm—buyers ought to honour their commitments even under changed market conditions—was enforced by the courts through a seemingly harsh application of an unrelated rule concerning rejection.

It is these “background facts, those of mercantile practice, those of the situation-type,” according to Llewellyn, that determine the course of such decisions. By calling attention to the role of nonlegal factors in judicial decision making, Llewellyn and the realists initiated an interdisciplinary turn in American legal education and made clear the need for lawyers to draw on the social sciences in understanding the development of law and what judges do.
View complete answer

What are the three theories of Realism?

Realism – Realism or political realism has been the dominant theory of international relations since the conception of the discipline. The theory claims to rely upon an ancient tradition of thought which includes writers such as Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes,

• Statism: Realists believe that nation states are the main actors in international politics. As such it is a state-centric theory of international relations. This contrasts with liberal international relations theories which accommodate roles for non-state actors and international institutions. This difference is sometimes expressed by describing a realist world view as one which sees nation states as billiard balls, liberals would consider relationships between states to be more of a cobweb,
• Survival: Realists believe that the international system is governed by anarchy, meaning that there is no central authority. Therefore, international politics is a struggle for power between self-interested states.
• Self-help: Realists believe that no other states can be relied upon to help guarantee the state’s survival.

Realism makes several key assumptions. It assumes that nation-states are unitary, geographically based actors in an anarchic international system with no authority above capable of regulating interactions between states as no true authoritative world government exists.

• Secondly, it assumes that sovereign states, rather than intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs.
• Thus, states, as the highest order, are in competition with one another.
• As such, a state acts as a rational autonomous actor in pursuit of its own self-interest with a primary goal to maintain and ensure its own security—and thus its sovereignty and survival.

Realism holds that in pursuit of their interests, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative levels of power, That level of power is in turn determined by the state’s military, economic, and political capabilities.

Some realists, known as human nature realists or classical realists, believe that states are inherently aggressive, that territorial expansion is constrained only by opposing powers, while others, known as offensive / defensive realists, believe that states are obsessed with the security and continuation of the state’s existence.

The defensive view can lead to a security dilemma, where increasing one’s own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms, making security a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.
View complete answer

What is Realism theory by Aristotle?

Realism is a philosophy started by the ancient Greek writer, Aristotle. It states that there is a true reality, and things exist whether humans perceive them or not.
View complete answer

Is Plato a realist?

One of the earliest and most famous realist doctrines is Plato ‘s theory of Forms, which asserts that things such as “the Beautiful” (or “Beauty”) and “the Just” (or “Justice”) exist over and above the particular beautiful objects and just acts in which they are instantiated and more or less imperfectly exemplified; the Forms themselves are thought of as located neither in space nor in time.

Although Plato’s usual term for them ( eido ) is often translated in English as Idea, it is clear that he did not think of them as mental but rather as abstract, existing independently both of mental activity and of sensible particulars. As such, they lie beyond the reach of sense perception, which Plato regarded as providing only beliefs about appearances as opposed to knowledge of what is truly real.

Indeed, the Forms are knowable only by the philosophically schooled intellect. Although the interpretation of Plato’s theory remains a matter of scholarly controversy, there is no doubt that his promulgation of it initiated an enduring dispute about the existence of universals —often conceived, in opposition to particulars, as entities, such as general properties, which may be wholly present at different times and places or instantiated by many distinct particular objects.

Plato’s pupil Aristotle reacted against the extreme realism which he took Plato to be endorsing: the thesis of universalia ante res (Latin: “universals before things”), according to which universals exist in their own right, prior to and independently of their instantiation by sensible particulars. He advocated instead a more moderate realism of universalia in rebus (“universals in things”): While there are universals, they can have no freestanding, independent existence.

They exist only in the particulars that instantiate them. In the medieval period, defenders of a broadly Aristotelian realism, including William of Shyreswood and Peter of Spain, were opposed by both nominalists and conceptualists, Nominalists, notably William of Ockham, insisted that everything in the nonlinguistic world is particular.

• They argued that universals are merely words which have a general application—an application which is sufficiently explained by reference to the similarities among the various particulars to which the words are applied.
• Conceptualists agreed with the nominalists that everything is particular but held that words which have general application do so by virtue of standing for mental intermediaries, usually called general ideas or concepts,

Although medieval in origin, the latter view found its best-known implementation in the English philosopher John Locke ‘s theory of abstract ideas, so called because they are supposed to be formed from the wholly particular ideas supplied in experience by “abstracting” from their differences to leave only what is common to all of them.

Locke’s doctrine was vigorously criticized in the 18th century by his empiricist successors, George Berkeley and David Hume, who argued that ideas corresponding to general words are fully determinate and particular and that their generality of application is achieved by making one particular idea stand indifferently as a representative of many.

The problem of universals remains an important focus of metaphysical discussion. Although Plato’s extreme realism has found few advocates, in the later 20th century there was a revival of interest in Aristotle’s moderate realism, a version of which was defended—with important modifications—by the Australian philosopher David Armstrong.
View complete answer

What are the two schools of realism?

This content was originally written for an undergraduate or Master’s program. It is published as part of our mission to showcase peer-leading papers written by students during their studies. This work can be used for background reading and research, but should not be cited as an expert source or used in place of scholarly articles/books.

• The purpose of this essay is to examine the main differences between classical realism and neorealism by focussing on landmark books written by scholars from the realist school of thought.
• Realism will be approached as a united tradition, implying that neorealism is not a chronological continuity of classical realism, but rather, a change from within it that was adapted to the challenges of the real world and to those of other schools of thought.

For this purpose, classical realism and neorealism will be considered as strands of thought from within the same school, and therefore, each time the term ‘strand’ is used, it refers to the contents of the same body and not of another school. It is only in this framework that the main purpose of the realist theory of international relations, which is to explain international outcomes, will remain intact.

1. In the first part of the essay, classical realism in contemporary international politics and neorealism will be defined.
2. Moreover, the main scholars of each strand will be mentioned.
3. In the second part of the essay, an outline will be provided illuminating what the major contributors to each strand have written on international politics, and the basic issues that matter for realism will be provided as well.

The works of Carr, Niebuhr, and Morgenthau, will be examined for the account of classical realism, while Mearsheimer and Waltz will be studied for the account of neorealism. Then, it will be possible to proceed to the final and most essential part of the essay, which examines the differences between these two strands.

• Before moving to the main body of the essay it is useful to provide some definitions of the tools that neorealism uses in its effort to explain international outcomes.
• Self-Help: Since anarchy is what defines the international system, Waltz differentiates domestic from international politics, by arguing that in the latter survival (for him security) can only be achieved through self help.

‘ Self-help is necessarily the principle for action’ (Waltz, 1979, p.111) Security Dilemma: The situation that emerges when a state or coalition of states grows in power, thus, making another state or coalition feel threatened, leading it to seek ways to check the other (Waltz, 1979).

• Definition of terms In the literature regarding realism, terminology can be found that questions if there is one unified and coherent tradition of thought under this name.
• If realism is codified chronologically, then there are the distinctions of classical, modern, and neorealism (Dunne and Schmidt 2008).

If it is codified according to the content of their respective analysis and consequent hypotheses, then more lines of distinction will appear. For example, within realism one can distinguish an offensive (Mearsheimer) and a defensive (Waltz) version, according to how much power they believe that states need to achieve for survival.

1. Furthermore, if a chronological perspective is taken, after the end of the Cold War some scholars of realism tried to incorporate into Waltz’s realism the element of foreign policy, and these scholars were named, by Rose (1998), as neoclassical realists.
2. For the purpose of this essay, the core assumptions and hypotheses of all strands within realism will be used by making one main distinction which can be seen either chronologically, or methodologically, since the two are correlated.

The distinction takes place chronologically after the writing of Waltz’s book the “Theory of International Politics” in 1979. Methodologically, he distinguishes himself from the previous efforts of realism to explain international outcomes by trying to create a theory, on realism’s behalf, for international politics by finding law-like regularities, clearly influenced from his era’s predominance of positivism (Burnham et al, 2008).

The term ‘classical’ realism will be used in the broader chronological sphere, rather than how it is usually referred to. Therefore, except for Thucydides, Nicollo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and Hans Morgenthau, when the term ‘classical’ is used here, it also refers to the works of Edward Carr (1929) and Reinhold Niebuhr (1932).

However, the guiding text that is used for classical realism will be the one written by Morgenthau and revised by Thompson (1985), which is ” Politics Among Nations, The struggle for Power and Peace, ” as it is the most conscious effort to codify classical realist thought by organising it into principles.

On the other hand, the term ‘neorealism’ will be used to refer to Mearsheimer’s work (2001), but primarily to the work of Kenneth Waltz for the reasons mentioned above. The novelties he introduced will be examined in the appropriate part. The guiding text that is used for neorealism is, of course, Waltz’s (1979) “Theory of International Politics.” Classical Realism Classical realism’s roots can be found in the works of Thucydides in ancient Greece, Kautilya in ancient India, Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes in the 16 th century, and most recently with Hegel and Weber (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff Jr., 1990).

This essay, however, will focus on the work of three 20 th century scholars because each one’s writings can be considered a valuable contribution to the understanding of international relations, during the particular time it was written. After the First World War, and during the interwar period of the 1930s, the basic assumptions of the predominant school of thought were challenged by a number of factors.

Liberal institutionalism declared that it is in mankind’s best interest to cooperate, and therefore, law should be the guiding collective principle, not war. Facts, however, like the behaviour of Hitler and Mussolini, and most of all, the ongoing failure of liberalism’s favourite League of Nations, gave rise to a different way of conceptualising international politics.

In this context, the work of Ronald Niebuhr in 1932, ” Moral Man and Immoral Society-A study in Ethics and Politics,” is the first serious challenge to liberal institutionalism. His central argument is that liberals overestimated the ability of humans to work collectively in a way that is truly moral (Brown, 2001).

Throughout Niebuhr’s work the morality argument is obvious and it is used to explain that international cooperation is unachievable due to human nature. He does not believe that statesmen do not have the capacity to be good, rather, this capacity is “always in conflict with the sinful acquisitive and aggressive drives, present in human nature” (Niebuhr in Brown 2001, p.28).

Consequently, he had theses on some of the basic analytical tools mentioned earlier. In regard to national interest, he believed that since national interests are subjective for each nation, the rule that statesmen must frame policies within it cannot always apply (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff Jr., 1990).

• Regarding the balance of power, he believed that “it is the organisational device for achieving a semblance of justice” (ibid, p.94).
• Since human nature is sinful there can be no absolute justice, and in conditions of disproportional power, the balance of power is the closest thing to justice.
• The second work that can be considered a turning point, which defined the turn from liberalism to realism, is Edward H.

Carr’s “The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939, An Introduction to the Study of International Relations.” Carr refers to liberalism as utopianism and he believes that utopia lies in the liberal notion that a harmony of interests can be achieved. Up to this point he agrees with Niebuhr, but he distinguishes himself when he argues that cooperation cannot be achieved, not because of human nature, but because of a conflict between the haves and have-nots (Carr, 2001).

1. He sees scarcity as the central feature of the world and it is within this context that international politics are to be understood.
2. On the concept of power, he contributes by separating the theoretical models of military, economic, and persuasive power, arguing that every form is needed from states and power should be treated as a whole, which is the law through which social dynamics are shaped (ibid, Ch.8).

Carr is himself concerned with morality, distinguishing it between the individual and the state (ibid, Ch.9), he argues that international morality comes as a result of the morality of each state, but he conceives the personalisation of each state as a tool, however a tool cannot have morality.

1. Consequently, morality is irrelevant in international relations.
2. The final, but most influential, classical realist work is Hans Morgenthau’s “Politics Among Nations, The struggle for Power and Peace,” written in 1948.
3. It shaped the post-war synthesis in international politics literature, which at the time was dominated by realists (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff Jr.1990, Brown 2001, Dune and Schmidt, 2008).

In the study of international politics, the novelty which Morgenthau introduces is that he consciously tries to systematize realism (Brown, 2001). This can be seen in the first chapter, in which he depicts the 6 principles of political realism. By examining his six principles of political realism, his main points are that states are the primary actors, national interest is hard to define but the minimum goal is survival, and national interest is defined, however, in terms of power.

1. Morality is once again irrelevant since there are no universal moral principles which can be applied at all times.
2. Morgenthau, as Niebuhr and Carr, separated the morality of states from the morality of individuals, but he goes a step beyond stating that statesmen are the ones responsible for distinguishing the morality of the state from the morality of an individual, in order to assure national survival.

Finally, he suggests the autonomy of the political sphere from all other social spheres (Morgenthau, 1985). In this sense, his work is not really an objective effort to theorize, but it also has propositions and indications for policy making. Morgenthau dedicated a whole chapter on the balance of power in order to introduce it as the most effective technique to manage power.

1. For him, only through the balance of power can international peace ultimately be achieved.
2. He gives four different meanings for it and proposes many different methods to achieve it, but what matters for it to work is the consensus upon which it is built.
3. In other words, states as the primary actors of the international system have to accept that they work within a balance of power system and within this context only, can power be checked (ibid 1985, ch.11 and 12).

Overall, his rationale is simple and can be reduced to the sentence: international politics is governed by states which pursue their natural interests by pursuing power. Morgenthau, just as Niebuhr did, by bringing to the front the aggressive, power seeking nature of states, highlights the imperfection of human nature.

1. Neorealism It is difficult to define neorealism without comparing it to classical realism.
2. In this part, however, the main characteristics of neorealist theory will be mentioned as presented by Waltz, and later supported by Mearsheimer.
3. Waltz first conceptualised the idea of international politics as a system.

In his first book, the “Man state and the War – A theoretical analysis,” he studies why wars happen because of human behaviour, state behaviour, and introducing a new dimension, he studies why wars happen because of international political systems, which he examines as one entity.

This first book was the basis for the second, which would be the defining one for contemporary realists and students of international politics in general, the “Theory of International Politics.” It is in this latter book that international politics are examined as a particular theory by introducing the idea of structure to the international political system (Kleiser, 2003).

As Waltz states in his second book, the goal of his theory is to explain “why patterns of behaviour reoccur a theory of international politics will, for example explain, war recurs but it will not predict the outbreak of particular wars” (Waltz 1979, p.69).

In a few words, Waltz consciously tries to create an independent theory of international politics, which as he says, like every theory, can explain how the system works but not make particular predictions. The principal characteristic of the international political system is that it is a whole that cannot be reduced into parts, which is why his theory is called a systemic one.

The international political system has separate units but these act according to the structure of the system (Waltz 1979, Ch.5). There are also other important characteristics. First, the organising principle of the system is anarchy, as it was for previous realists.

1. In this context the minimum goal of states is survival (ibid).
2. The second characteristic of the structure of the international system is the nature of the units that constitute its parts and their functions.
3. He argues that in the anarchical system, states are primary actors, as previous realists also suggested, which perform similar functions (ibid).Third, Waltz talks about the distribution of capabilities among states as parts of the system, and here he argues that although capabilities are characteristic of the units (states), it is the system that defines how those capabilities are to be distributed.

Within the Waltzian concept, states are the primary actors, and act as unitary parts of the international political system. National interest could be defined, at a minimum, as state self preservation, and at a maximum, as the state’s drive for universal domination (ibid).

Therefore, the balance of power is once again needed to preserve the system and it will happen as a condition of the system, meaning that if the actual distribution of power is such that a balance can emerge, and if states take notice of their surroundings, they will adjust their policies to the configuration of worldwide power (ibid).

Of course, that presupposes two critical provisions, one systemic and one of the state, but this is exactly how the Waltzian concept works. It could be argued that Mearsheimer cannot be included in the same basket as Waltz due to a critical difference that they have when answering the question; how much power do states need ? However, since Mearsheimer agrees with the underlying core assumption of the Waltzian concept, that it is the structure of the international political system that defines the actions of states as its unitary actions (Kreisler, 2002); I believe that his work can be included in the neorealist strand.

1. In his book, which is considered his main contribution in the field of international politics, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, ” Mearscheimer concludes the same points as Waltz in the following matters.
2. First, anarchy is what defines the system and therefore states continue to feel threatened.
3. Second, the primary goal of national interest remains survival and since the system is anarchical they turn to self-help.

Here is where their paths separate, however, since Mearscheimer believes that in order to achieve survival it is necessary to dominate the entire regional international system (Mearscheimer, 2001), whereas Waltz believes that too much power can be risky as it leads to security dilemmas.

Now that a comprehensive view of the classical realist and neorealist traditions has been provided, their main differences will be analysed, as they appear by comparing the previously mentioned books. Main Differences The focus now turns to what distinguishes neorealism from classical realism. An inversion of the question, what distinguishes the latter from the former, would not be appropriate here because Waltz’s neorealism came as an answer to classical realism and it actually revitalised it (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008).

In order to answer the above question, it could be asked what distinguishes Waltz’s work from that of Morgenthau. In Waltz’s own words: “Morgenthau and other realists failed to take the fateful step beyond developing concepts to the fashioning of a recognizable theory” (Waltz, 1990).

1. So, what he tried to do in the “Theory of International Politics” was to first ” develop an idea of the structure of international politics, which would make it possible to think of international politics as a subject matter that could be studied in its own right” (Kleiser 2003).
2. It could be argued that Morgenthau in “Politics Among Nations” tried to provide a theory of international politics by making reference to many ‘laws of politics’ or by codifying basic concepts.

However, this is not exactly the case because although he argues that he tries to explain how the world works according to his theory, what he really does is tell statesmen how they should behave by providing prescriptive elements (Brown 2001). In this sense, his work is mostly a textbook for foreign policy making rather than a general explanatory theory.

1. Where Morgenthau failed, Waltz succeeded by introducing the idea of structure.
2. Waltz (1979, 1990) argues that international politics should be perceived as a system with a precisely defined structure.
3. Unlike Morgenthau (1985) who believed that when studying international politics one should not distinguish it from the realm of influences, such as national politics, economics, and international politics; Waltz isolated the realm of international politics by depicting an international political system as a whole, just to deal with it intellectually.

By introducing the concept of structure, meaning the autonomy of international politics, he was able to produce what can be perceived as a theory. For him ” international structure emerges from the interaction of states and then constraints them from certain actions while propelling them towards others” (Waltz 1990, p.29).

• Structure is defined by the ordering principle of the system which is anarchy, and by this structure is able to perpetuate itself because of a differentiated distribution of capabilities across the system’s units, which are states (ibid and Waltz, 1979).
• After this core assumption, of international political systems as a defining structure, is introduced, we can proceed to the next differentiations of neorealism from classical realism.

Keeping in mind that the main purpose of realism is to explain international political outcomes, a second difference emerges. Classical realists’ work on this matter is inductive, meaning that they explain outcomes by focusing on unit level explanations.

• They focus on states to explain outcomes.
• This way the characteristics and interactions of the units are taken as the causes of outcomes.
• Neorealists, on the other hand, take a deductive approach, arguing that political outcomes can be understood only when the affects of the structure, that Waltz introduced, are added to the classical realist unit level explanation.

This way international political outcomes are explained when the effects of structure on the units are added, and the focus shifts from the characteristics of the states to the characteristics of the structure. While Niebuhr (1932) and Morgenthau (1985) concentrate on evil human nature, Waltzian neorealism focuses on the structure defined by anarchy and the differentiation of power and capabilities among states.

On the other hand, however, it could be argued that Carr, one of the main figures among classical realists when examining the causes of war, did not focus on evil human nature, but on scarcity (Carr, 2001), and in this way he underlined a structural characteristic and came closer to the neorealist perception of international politics.

A third difference emerges in how power is perceived in each strand. By focusing on state level analysis, classical realists argue that the desire for power emerges from the nature of states, which in turn emerges from the nature of man (Niebuhr, 1932).

In this context however, power is never enough and it is perceived as an end in itself, and as Morgenthau noted, “The desire to attain a maximum of power is universal” (1985, p.36) and it is “one of objective laws that have their roots in human nature” (ibid, p.4). Waltz, however, argues that power is a means to an end, and that end is security, and as Waltz notes, “Because power is a possibly useful means, sensible statesmen try to have an appropriate amount of it.

In crucial situations, however, the ultimate concern of states is not for power but for security” (Waltz 1988, p.616). This also explains the classical realist notion of engaging with moral philosophy and issues of morality in general (Niebuhr 1932, Carr 2001 and Morgenthau 1985), whereas neorealists do not rely on it to explain outcomes.

Neorealists like Waltz perceive power as a means to an end because their focus is on the structure of the international political system which is anarchical, and therefore, their ultimate concern should be security. Waltz argues that power is risky if one has too little or too much. If a state has too little, it is vulnerable to threats, but if it has too much it raises the issue of a security dilemma, therefore its ultimate concern should be survival (Waltz, 1979).

Finally, a fourth difference can be spotted among the two strands in how each of their theorists perceives anarchy. In classical realism anarchy is a condition of the system, whereas in neorealism anarchy is what defines it. Consequently, in their respective efforts to explain international outcomes they see different ways how states would react to it.

In classical realism, states react to anarchy according to their population, location, domestic politics, and leadership qualities, whereas for neorealism there is no question of reaction to anarchy, rather than similarity in the way they function, since anarchy defines the structure of the system (Waltz, 1990).

In this sense, the difference among states’ reactions emerge not from their domestic features, but from the constraints that the system imposes on them. Consequently, each strand, commencing from a different assumption, concludes with a different interpretation of international political outcomes.

Neorealism, in order to explain these outcomes, introduces the concept of distribution of capabilities. It is the anarchical system that distributes power and capabilities among states, and states use them in order to achieve security. Waltz argues that it is normal for changes in the unit-level to affect the system’s structure, but this however will not change the way we should theorise international politics (ibid).

An example is needed in order to depict how Waltz perceives anarchy. In today’s anarchical world, different states follow different policies according to what anarchy imposes on them. For example, Italy which has few resources will react to a security threat, not by trying to increase its military power, but through joining an alliance (NATO) or by cooperating regionally.

1. However, China, with increasing wealth, is likely to respond to such a threat by increasing its military strength.
2. Morgenthau would argue that Italy and China would respond to such a threat only if their political leadership or domestic policy necessitated it.
3. However, this is not enough to explain international political outcomes on the whole.

These are the main differences between classical realism and Waltz’s realism. Mearsheimer, as a contemporary neorealist, would also concur with most of Waltz’s points, but not on how power is perceived. There he would agree with Morgenthau that the desire for power has no limits, he would say however, that this happens not because of human nature but because of the system’s structure (Kleiser, 2002).

1. In the literature that is considered as neorealist there is also a part that focuses on relative and absolute gains, like Grieco’s work (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008).
2. However, they are mostly concerned with explaining issues of cooperation and the study of their work would be more appropriate in comparison with the neoliberal tradition of thought, so for the purpose of this essay it has been omitted.

Conclusion After having examined both strands, differences and similarities have emerged not only between these two approaches, but also within themselves. In order to find those differences I focused on the defining difference between neorealism and classical realism, that the concept of structure has emerged in order to theorise international politics.

• After this clarification I found that classical realists explain international politics by focusing on human nature and, apart from Carr, they perceive power as the ultimate goal of states, like Mearsheimer.
• Moreover, for classical realists anarchy is not the primary focus when explaining different state policies.

Hence, classical realism remains more of a foreign policy guide than a theory like the one Waltz wanted to introduce. I have consciously preferred to limit the debate to its theoretical applications, since no strand can fully explain particular cases from the real world.

• Bibliography: BURNHAM Peter et Al.
• 2008), ” Research Methods in Politics” (2 nd ed.) New York: Palgrave MacMillan BROWN Chris (2001), “Understanding International Relations” (2 nd ed.), New York: Palgrave CARR, H.
• Edward (2001), “I ikosaetis krisi 1919-1939, Isagogi sti meleti ton diethnwn sheseon” (2 nd ed), Athens: Poitita translated from CARR, H.

Edward (1939), “The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939, An Introduction to the Study of International Relations” Rights released from Curtis Brown Group Ltd. DOUGHERTY, E. James and PFALTZGRAFF E. Robert (1990), “Contending Theories of International Relations- A comprehensive study” (3 rd ed.), New York: Harper & Row DUNNE, Tim and SCHMIDT C.

• Brian (2008), ‘Realism’ in BAYLIS et.
• Al (4 th ed.) “The Globalization of World Politics, An introduction to international relations”, Oxford: Oxford University Press KEGLEY, JR.W.
• Charles (2008), “World Politics, Trend and Transformation”, (12 th ed.), Belmond: Wadsworth Cengage Learning KLEISER Hennry (2002), “Trough the Realist Lens- Conversation with John J.

Mearsheimer “, Conversations with History, Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, Available: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Mearsheimer/mearsheimer-con0.html KLEISER Hennry (2003), “Theory and International Politics- Conversation with Kenneth N.

• Waltz”, Conversations with History, Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, Available: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con0.html MEARSHEIMER, John (2001), ” The Tragedy of Great Power Politics “, New York: W.W.
• Norton & Company, Inc.
• MORGENTHAU, Hans and THOMPSON Kenneth (1985), “Politics Among Nations, The struggle for Power and Peace” (6 th ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill NIEBUHR, Reinhold (1932), “Moral Man and Immoral Society-A study in Ethics and Politics”, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons ROSE, Gideon (1998), “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy” in “World Politics”, 51:1, 144-172 WALTZ N.

Kenneth (1979), “Theory of International Politics”, London: McGraw-Hill, Inc. WALTZ N. Kenneth (1989), “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory” in Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Sring 1988, 18 (4), p.615-628, Available: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/S6800/courseworks/OriginsOfWar.pdf WALTZ N.
View complete answer

Who was the first realist philosopher?

Understanding the 4 Main Schools of Philosophy: Principle of Realism Understanding philosophy is important for educators not only so that they possess an individual philosophy but gain more awareness to the philosophies of their students and administrators.

1. In this series on the four main schools of philosophies idealism, realism, postmodernism, and pragmatism will be reviewed to assist with understanding the elements of philosophy.
2. This article focuses on realism.
3. Realism is the notion that the world exists in terms of matter, separate from the world of ideas and independent of it.

Aristotle (384 BC–322 BC), the father of realism, was a student of Plato, and adapted his philosophies from that of his teacher. Considering that both men were from the same small community, it is astonishing that both Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophies of education have endured for thousands of years.

1. Much like idealism, there are three branches of realism: classical, religious, and modern.
2. The ideas proposed by Aristotle can be classified as classical realism.
3. Classical realism suggests that matter is real and that it is separate from our perceptions.
4. You may not see it, hear it, or feel it, but it nevertheless exists.

Education cultivates the capacity to reason, which allows for proper choices. Aristotle asserted that ideas can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without ideas. If one understands the matter, then one will be led to understanding the idea. The idea makes it clear that the underlying question of classical realism is purpose.

1. Aristotle also theorized the idea of free will.
2. He realized that some people choose not to reason but encouraged humanity to seek the Golden Mean by acquiring knowledge.
3. He warned that failure to think might result in extremes of excess or extremes of restraint.
4. Religious realism in Christianity was founded by St.

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1275). Aquinas presumed that God is pure reasoning, which is the truth of all things. He believed the sole purpose of existence is to reunite the soul with God. Modern realism was fashioned by the philosophers Francis Bacon (1561–1626) and John Locke (1632–1704).

Locke conjectured that everything we know comes from experience and from reflecting on that experience. We are not born with any innate or preconceived ideas, but rather are a blank slate. Bacon attempted to change the structure of realism from deductive reasoning to an inductive approach. The inductive approach would reform realists’ thinking from a specific idea in the physical world to a more general assumption, ignoring preconceived notions.

Bacon identified the origins of our preconceived notions, encouraging humanity to disregard these ideas. Realism has probably had the greatest impact on educational philosophy, because it is the foundation of scientific reasoning. Realist educators encourage students to draw their observations and conclusions from the world around them, rather than confining themselves to an analysis of their own ideas.

1. The modern role of a teacher—that of an organizer, systematizer, and promoter of critical thinking—is largely founded on realist principles.
2. Realist educators are objective, believing in a systematic approach to order and classified knowledge, building on previously learned information.
3. They are less likely to encourage their students to seek the truth in literature and ideas, instead encouraging them to seek the truth by testing learned principles on the world around them.

Military schools tend to promote a realist approach. By developing the character of each soldier, or student, they promote honor and dignity. They promote nationalism: the one truth that is common to each participant. Military schools are orderly and systematic and depend on the process to develop excellence in each man or woman.

Military schools maintain a distinct separation from the outside world in order to block distractions and allow the trainees to focus. Based on the three segments of realism does it align with your school’s education system? It is necessary to know the educational foundation of your school because as a teacher you are viewed as one who is upholding these values and beliefs.

Detailed video on Realist school of Jurisprudence

Continue reading the other sections of this series to understand the schools of thought pertaining to philosophy. : Understanding the 4 Main Schools of Philosophy: Principle of Realism
View complete answer

What is the theory of Karl Marx jurisprudence?

He argued that law is a social regulator in a market economy in which independent private producers and owners of commodities exchange their produce by means of contracts and transactions. He believed that law was out of place in a socialist society which is characterized by unity of social purpose.
View complete answer

Who said jurisprudence?

An English Jurist Sir Thomas Erskine Holland defines, Jurisprudence as, ‘ Jurisprudence is the formal science of positive law” According to him jurisprudence should only concern itself with the basic principles of concepts underlying in any natural system of law.
View complete answer

Who said jurisprudence is philosophy of law?

Thomas Aquinas (1224/25–74).
View complete answer

Was Rousseau a realist?

Despite his reputation to the contrary, Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a democratic realist who accepts human imperfection and eschews any ultimate solution to the human problem.
View complete answer

Is John Locke a realist?

VI. Naive realism vs critical realism – Locke’s next point is the distinction between naïve realism and critical realism. First, though, we must distinguish between the philosophy of realism and the philosophy of idealism. Realism is any philosophy which holds that there is a real world out there, and that our sensations and perceptions result from an encounter with that real world.

• Idealism (as you would seen in George Berkeley if you read him) is any philosophy which holds that there is no real world out there, and that the only things that exist are our perceptions and sensations.
• Locke is definitely a realist.
• He believes that there is a real world out there, and he believes that’s what good common sense teaches us too.

But Locke wants to distinguish between a naïve realism and a critical realism. Naïve realism would be the unreflective belief that there is a real world out there, and that our perceptions are an exact copy, an exact replica, of what is actually out there in the world.

Naïve realism thinks of our senses as more or less like a simple brownie camera, in which we open our senses to the world and the world comes simply streaming into our mind and leaves a perfect copy of itself in our perceptions. Naïve realism would not be aware of how much our senses and brain transduce the information that comes into them.

Locke considers himself to be a critical realist. Critical realism is the belief that yes, there is a real world out there, but our sensations and perceptions are not simple copies of that real world. Critical realism believes that our senses really do transduce and modify the incoming data so that it will register in our minds in ways that make sense to our brains and minds.

1. Perhaps a metaphor can help this more understandable.
2. Suppose a classroom full of little laptop binary computers all sitting in a circle and having a discussion amongst themselves.
3. All any of them can perceive, of course, are ones and zeros, since they are all binary computers and that is all that binary computers can perceive.

(If we want to communicate with our computers, you know that we must translate everything we want to say to them into ones and zeros; so if I want to say “L” to my computer, I have to translate that L into 10001010 so that the computer can understand it, because strings of ones and zeros are all that its little processor can register.) In any case, imagine all these little computers thinking about what the real world out there must actually be like.

The naïve realists among them would believe that the world consists of nothing but ones and zeros, because that is exactly what they all see. The critical realists among them would believe that yes, there must be a real world out there, but it probably does not consist of only ones and zeros. “The world comes streaming into us through our input devices,” says one critical realist computer,” but our input devices transduce the world into the categories that we can understand, which is ones and zeros.

The world out there is not actually ones and zeros, but ones and zeros are the only categories we have for perceiving the world, so if we’re going to see anything at all, it will have to register with us in those categories.” Locke believes that we are just like the binary computers, except that we have a few more categories of perception than they do.
View complete answer

What did Thucydides say about realism?

This content was originally written for an undergraduate or Master’s program. It is published as part of our mission to showcase peer-leading papers written by students during their studies. This work can be used for background reading and research, but should not be cited as an expert source or used in place of scholarly articles/books.

• The Realist school of thought in International Relations has claimed both Thucydides and Thomas Hobbes as two of their intellectual forefathers and in doing so has suggested that the core beliefs and views of these two political thinkers can be classified as Realism.
• This essay will set out to identify and discuss the main principles of political realism in order to, then, be able to compare and contrast the assumptions of Thucydides and Hobbes about these issues.

This will be done through a brief recourse to the core realist principles and then the discussion will move on to compare the views of Hobbes and Thucydides on the topics of the international system; the state and the individual in international relations and finally the causes and justifications of war.

1. Political Realism sees international relations mainly as a struggle of self-interested, sovereign states that are involved in a game of power-politics within a permanent state of anarchy.
2. The international system, according to this school of thought, is a moral- and value-free environment in which the state is seen as a rational and unitary actor that finds itself in constant conflict with the other states of the system due to the lack of an overarching world government.

Stemming from their pessimistic view on human nature, the only way to achieve security in the international system, according to political realism, is by creating a Balance of Power among the most powerful states of the system. In the writings of Thucydides, many of these core realist assumptions can be found.

Pointing towards the concept of power politics, in History of the Peloponnesian War one of his main arguments is, that the strong should rule the weak, as they have the power to do so. He also picks up on themes such as the Security Dilemma, the Balance of Power and the place of justice and morality in international relations.

However, to what extent he agrees or disagrees with political realism on these issues will be shown later. Thomas Hobbes, especially in his Leviathan, refers to similar concepts. His idea about the ‘State of Nature’ incorporates some of the main realist principles, such as the state of anarchy.

1. But, here again, the limitations he makes to each of these assumptions have to be carefully considered and taken into account when comparing and contrasting his views on political realism with those of Thucydides.
2. As briefly mentioned earlier, both political thinkers pick up on the realist view of the international system as a value- and moral-free place of anarchy, where states live under a constant fear of attack or betrayal by others and thus are facing a Security Dilemma.

Thucydides, taking up the issue of anarchy within the international system, very much agrees with the realist point of view, saying that in a system where there is no overarching authority, the only way to maintain order is through some form of Balance of Power, which – in the case of Thucydides – takes the form of the strong exercising their power over the weak.

• Hobbes, in comparison, takes quite a different look at this.
• Stemming from his theory about the ‘State of Nature’, he admits that without a world government, the system is subject to a state of anarchy and of “a war as is of every man against every man”,
• However, Hobbes opposes the view that under such conditions it is the strong who determine the order of the international system.

According to his theory of the ‘State of Nature’, every man is equal and thus “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.”, The order, according to Hobbes, is rather maintained by a “general rule of reason” which is that “every man ought to endeavour peace” and since every man is equal in strength and desires, there is certainty that this principle will be followed as long as one’s own security is not endangered.

This leads on to the realist claim of a moral- and value-free international system. According to political realism, which sees the state as the primary and simply self-interested rational actor, there can be no universal set of morals or values. Thucydides and Hobbes both don’t fully agree with that point.

For Hobbes, as just pointed out, there are, what he calls “general rule of reason” which apply to everyone in the international system and thus create some form of moral standard which to adhere to. Thucydides is a little more sceptical of this, however, even he does not fully deny the existence of such morals and values when speaking about the Spartans’ view of the international system in his History of the Peloponnesian War (Peter J.

1. Ahrensdorf; “Thucydides’ Realist Critique of Realism”; Polity ; Volume 2, Number 2; Winter, 1997).
2. Hence, realist assumptions about the international system can be found in the works of both, Hobbes and Thucydides, but, as has been shown, their opinions diverge from each other and from political realism on issues like order and universal morals and values in the international system.

In order to understand and appreciate this difference more, it is helpful to look at the assumptions that political realism and Hobbes and Thucydides make about the individual and the state and their behaviour in international relations. Political realism regards the state as a unitary, rational actor that is motivated by power politics and its self-interest.

As far as the individual is concerned, realism holds a very pessimistic view of human nature, regarding people as power-hungry and capable of evil. Thucydides mostly shares this negative view of human nature as he sees “fear, the desire for glory, and the pursuit of self-interest” as universal human characteristics, thus implying that human behaviour is uniform and predictable.

Hobbes disagrees with Thucydides and political realism on this point, as although he acknowledges that humans are capable of being evil, he lays more emphasis on possible ways out of this dilemma. Hobbes argues that men have a strong and constant desire for peace and thus, they will always use their power to “obtain some future apparent Good”,

He also claims that peace and security in an international system without an overarching authority can only be achieved through cooperation between states and between individuals. This leads on to the next point which has to be made about the view of Hobbes and Thucydides on individuals and states: cooperation.

Political realism sees no actual possibility for states to form successful alliances, as no state can be trusted since it only relies on its self-interest and does not pay much attention to what would happen to other states in the system. Thucydides takes a similar stand as he – although not ignoring the possibility – is very sceptical of the chances of success of such a form of cooperation given the anarchic structure of the international system and solely self-interested states.

1. Hobbes, on the other hand, does recognise the limitations mentioned above, however he also says that due to the fact that all states are equal within the international system, they can “create more stable forms of coexistence among themselves” and thus establish peace and security.
2. Moving on from the assumptions about individuals and states, the discussion will now turn to another very important concept in political realism as well as in the writings of Hobbes and Thucydides; that is war and its causes and justifications.

According to political realism, war is inevitable in an international system where anarchy is the rule. As power-hungry individuals lead their states in pursuit of the national interest, fulfilment of the latter can sometimes only be achieved through conflict or the use of force.

Thucydides discusses war and conflict at length in his History of the Peloponnesian War and comes to the conclusion that “What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta.” Here he has identified one of the main reasons for war: fear. As Thucydides sees fear as one of the universal human characteristics leading to an evil human nature and thus evil human behaviour, it can be seen that, for Thucydides, war is an inevitable feature of the international system.

With the Balance of Power destabilising, which, according to Thucydides, is the only means to achieve peace, the growth of power in Athens caused the Spartans to feel more and more insecure and thus they started to prepare to defend themselves. This very much reflects the realist point of view, as it argues that without a Balance of Power there can be no peace and it also shows how easily the balance can be disrupted so that it causes a war.

1. Hobbes’ viewpoint, again, differs from the above.
2. In his “first and fundamental law of nature” he states that the primary objective of every man “is: to seek peace and follow it.” This suggests that Hobbes does not see war as a necessary means in a world of anarchy, but rather that if every man adheres to this law, there will be no need for war, as “rational sovereigns will not act in an unnecessarily aggressive manner.” However, although these assumptions differ from the logic of warfare put forward by political realism and by Thucydides, the analysis of Hobbes’ view on war and conflict must not stop here.

There is also in Hobbes’ Leviathan a passage where he describes circumstances under which war may be justified: “every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of war.” Hence, this refers back to the idea of the self-interested state, as here, Hobbes seems to regard war as justified when there is no other way to achieve one’s own ultimate goal.

However, Noel Malcolm argues that ” does not imply that such wars of aggression are inevitable – still less that they are desirable. Rather, he regards them as the products of mistaken judgement about what will really serve the long-term interests of those rulers” and, further, Michael Williams points out that “There is no sense in Hobbes of the glorification of war”,

Hence, it can be seen that, as for the topic of war, there is a common assumption found in political realism as well as in the works of Hobbes and Thucydides that war may be justified on grounds of pursuit of the national interest and in order to achieve peace at last.

• However, there are differences as to what is a ‘legitimate’ national interest.
• Where for political realism everything that is in the interest of the state and can be achieved by no other means is seen as a justification; Hobbes is far more cautious, regarding only the quest for peace as a legitimate reason to go to war.

Thucydides, again, can be found in between those two extremes, as he sees the problem in human nature which causes the evil human behaviour and thus results in the outbreak of war. Overall, it has been shown that although Thucydides and Thomas Hobbes are classed as ‘realists’, there are significant differences in a lot of their views and assumptions about international relations.

Thucydides, all in all, tends to be closer to political realism in his view points than Hobbes. However, the key realist ideas about the international system, about individuals and states and regarding the causes and justifications of war can be found to a greater or lesser extent in the works of both, Hobbes and Thucydides.

Bibliography Literature 1) Boucher, David; Political Theories of International Relations: from Thucydides to the present.; Oxford University Press (1998) 2) Brown, Chris; Nardin, Terry and Rengger, Nicholas (editors); International Relations in Political Thought; Cambridge University Press (2002) 3) Finley, M.I.
View complete answer

Is Carl von Clausewitz a realist?

Clausewitz was a realist in many different senses, including realpolitik, and while in some respects a romantic, he also drew heavily on the rationalist ideas of the European Enlightenment.
View complete answer

Is Machiavelli a realist?

Realism and prophecy in Machiavelli and in Italian political culture ABSTRACT That Niccolò Machiavelli was a realist political theorist is perhaps one of the few claims on which scholars agree almost unanimously. The truth, however, is that his writings exhibit a blend of political realism and prophetic spirit.

• By realism I mean his belief that before any normative discussion on how human beings should behave in political life, we must properly understand how they behave in reality.
• By prophetic spirit I refer not only to the presence in his writings of prophecies concerning the future of Italy, but also to his condemnations of the corrupt morals and religion of his time and his indications of the path to moral and political redemption, which echo the Old Testament prophets.

Of the two sides of Machiavelli’s legacy – realism and prophecy – the second has surely helped the cause of Italian liberty more than the first. When Italians have interpreted Machiavelli as a pure realist, they have lost their liberty and have plunged into political and moral corruption.

The purpose of this paper is to defend these claims. Fra gli studiosi, l’affermazione che Niccolò Machiavelli è un teorico politico realista è probabilmente la più unanime. La verità, però, è che i suoi scritti sono contrassegnati da una combinazione di realismo politico e spirito profetico. Per realismo, intendo la convinzione che prima di una discussione normativa su come gli esseri umani dovrebbero comportarsi nella vita politica, dobbiamo capire sufficientemente come si comportano in realtà.

Per spirito profetico, intendo non solo la presenza negli scritti di profezie sul futuro dell’Italia, ma anche la presenza di una condanna della corruzione morale e religiosa dell’epoca, insieme alle indicazioni di un percorso lungo il sentiero della redenzione morale e politica che risuonano i profeti del Vecchio Testamento.
View complete answer

Is Max Weber a realist?

Weber has thus been identified with political ‘realism’ or a philosophy of Realpolitik or Machtpolitik, the core tenets of which Weber advanced in his 1895 lecture ‘The Nation State and Economic Policy.’ This ‘realism’ was defined by the assertions that (1) politics is separate, or autonomous, from ethics; (2) the
View complete answer

What type of theorist is Dworkin?

Law as rule and principle – Dworkin’s criticism of H.L.A. Hart’s legal positivism has been summarized by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Dworkin, as positivism’s most significant critic, rejects the positivist theory on every conceivable level. Dworkin’s opinion of Hart’s legal positivism was expressed in its fullest form in the book Law’s Empire, Dworkin’s theory is ” interpretive “: the law is whatever follows from a constructive interpretation of the institutional history of the legal system.

Dworkin argues that moral principles that people hold dear are often wrong, even to the extent that certain crimes are acceptable if one’s principles are skewed enough. To discover and apply these principles, courts interpret the legal data (legislation, cases, etc.) with a view to articulating an interpretation that best explains and justifies past legal practice.

All interpretation must follow, Dworkin argues, from the notion of ” law as integrity ” to make sense. Out of the idea that law is “interpretive” in this way, Dworkin argues that in every situation where people’s legal rights are controversial, the best interpretation involves the right answer thesis, the thesis that there exists a right answer as a matter of law that the judge must discover.

Dworkin opposes the notion that judges have a discretion in such difficult cases. Dworkin’s model of legal principles is also connected with Hart’s notion of the Rule of Recognition, Dworkin rejects Hart’s conception of a master rule in every legal system that identifies valid laws, on the basis that this would entail that the process of identifying law must be uncontroversial, whereas (Dworkin argues) people have legal rights even in cases where the correct legal outcome is open to reasonable dispute.

Dworkin moves away from positivism’s separation of law and morality, since constructive interpretation implicates moral judgments in every decision about what the law is. Despite their intellectual disagreements, Hart and Dworkin “remained on good terms.”
View complete answer

Who are realist political thinkers?

Classical realism in international relations – Realists frequently claim to draw on an ancient tradition of political thought. Among classic authors often cited by realists are Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Max Weber,

• Realism as a self-conscious movement in the study of international relations emerged during the mid-20th century and was inspired by the British political scientist and historian E.H. Carr,
• Carr attacked what he perceived as the dangerous and deluded “idealism” of liberal internationalists and, in particular, their belief in the possibility of progress through the construction of international institutions such as the League of Nations,

He focused instead on the perennial role of power and self-interest in determining state behaviour. The outbreak of World War II converted many scholars to that pessimistic vision. Thereafter, realism became established in American political science departments, its fortunes boosted by a number of émigré European scholars, most notably the German-born political scientist and historian Hans Morgenthau,

1. It is the realism of Carr, Morgenthau, and their followers that is known as classical.
2. Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations (1948) helped to meet the need for a general theoretical framework for realism.
3. Not only did it become one of the most extensively used textbooks in the United States and Britain—it continued to be republished in new editions over the next half century—it also was an essential exposition of the realist theory of international relations.

Numerous other contributors to realist theory emerged in the decade or so after World War II, including Arnold Wolfers, George F. Kennan, Robert Strausz-Hupé, Henry Kissinger, and the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, According to realism, states exist within an anarchic international system in which they are ultimately dependent on their own capabilities, or power, to further their national interests.

The most important national interest is the survival of the state, including its people, political system, and territorial integrity. Other major interests for realists include the preservation of a nation’s culture and economy. Realists contend that, as long as the world is divided into nation-states in an anarchic setting, national interest will remain the essence of international politics.

Classical realism was not a coherent school of thought. It drew from a wide variety of sources and offered competing visions of the self, the state, and the world. Whereas Carr was influenced by Marxism, Morgenthau drew on Friedrich Nietzsche, Weber, Carl Schmitt, and American civic republicanism,

Classical realists were united mainly by that which they opposed. Critical of the optimism and explanatory ambition of liberal internationalists, classical realists instead stressed the various barriers to progress and reform that allegedly inhered in human nature, in political institutions, or in the structure of the international system.

The fortunes of classical realism, grounded as it was in a combination of history, philosophy, and theology, waned during the era of social-scientific behaviourism in the 1960s. Its fortunes were revived by the emergence of neorealism during the 1970s.
View complete answer

Who philosopher is a realist?

Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher and a realist. Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher who can be considered an early realist. Perhaps the best reason for categorizing his thought as realist is his belief in natural kinds.
View complete answer